Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Hi Vicki, >"The individual being which identifies its existence > with that of the life in the physical body as "I" > is called the ego. > The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it. > Neither can the physical body , which is inert in itself , have > this ego-sense about it. > > Between the two , that is between the Self or pure Consciousness > and the inert physical body , there arises misteriously > the ego-sense or "I" notion , the hybrid which is neither > of them , and this flourishes as an individual being. > This ego or individual being is all the root of all that is futile > and undesirable in life. > Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means ; > then That which ever is alone remains resplendent. > This is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization. Are these Ramana's own words? It seems to be a very different viewpoint than expressed in this quotation: > But if you cease to identify > yourself with the body and realize the true Self , > this confusion will vanish . > You are eternal and others also will be found to be eternal. > Until this is realized there will always be grief due to false > values which are caused by wrong knowledge and wrong > identification. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Vicki, > > >"The individual being which identifies its existence > > with that of the life in the physical body as "I" > > is called the ego. > > The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it. > > Neither can the physical body , which is inert in itself , have > > this ego-sense about it. > > > > Between the two , that is between the Self or pure Consciousness > > and the inert physical body , there arises misteriously > > the ego-sense or "I" notion , the hybrid which is neither > > of them , and this flourishes as an individual being. > > This ego or individual being is all the root of all that is futile > > and undesirable in life. > > Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means ; > > then That which ever is alone remains resplendent. > > This is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization. > > Are these Ramana's own words? It seems to be a very different viewpoint > than expressed in this quotation: > > > But if you cease to identify > > yourself with the body and realize the true Self , > > this confusion will vanish . > > You are eternal and others also will be found to be eternal. > > Until this is realized there will always be grief due to false > > values which are caused by wrong knowledge and wrong > > identification. > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, I see no contradiction there. The ego comes from outside oneself, what is it but an illusion of individuality? If there is no 'I' then there is no one to receive pain or anything. The ego has to do with the mind not the body itself, so it is just a matter of turning the attention inwards. That's how I read it. So the body or food sheath annamayakosa is inert. The more subtle bodies are the one's that entertain the ego, particularly the manomayakosa or mind... Where do you see the contradiction Dharma? ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Dear Dharma, You wrote: > Are these Ramana's own words? It seems to be a very different viewpoint > than expressed in this quotation... Oh we have to be so careful with translations or take downs of words spoken by a sage... Most often translators are not enlightened and may have an agenda of their own, they may not hear the truth as direct as expressed. That is an advantage of this internet medium... Sages can write their own words... And when they get misunderstood there are enough checks and balances... Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Dear Vicky and Tony and Dharma and Mark et al... I think it is worthwhile to find out what Dharma means *for yourself*. Do not get tempted to argue what she wrote... see that you can find the validity of her expression... There are some strange slants in the first quote... Too bad Dharma's quote stops short of what Ramana also said but what has not been kept after the first record taking... Find it for yourself... There are shortcomings in both quotes, but more slants in the first one. I wrote a post to Tony to show how one can do that... No use to argue here, Dharma is pointing at something that is divergent... I will include something I wrote to Mark and someone else off line, Mark do you mind if I quote myself (and some of your words)? -------------- Sorry if it is a bit plentiful in the use of words... but I wanted it to be complete... It is a bit on the techno-spirito side. :-) ---------- Dear Mark. It is actually through many of such experiences* that I came upon the 'many worlds' solution. (*discovering that I could personally experience other people's lives as me, concurrent with my life. I could actually switch back and forth from person to person at will, e.g. one of my neighbours, a person at work, a little child, being them fully, while myself lying on bed bodily. I do not do that anymore, my other work being more needed.) I started to see the simplicity of this many lives / many worlds solution. I use the word solution as in 'solution to a mathematical equation' where x can be any number from zilch to infinity...each number solving the equation. Anything that can possibly exist, will exist, does exist and has existed in a 'no time / no space' instance. Any existence having its own particular and self created time / space coordinates as energy metabolises into matter. Each solution is a form or instance of existence: a life, entity, thing, being... each a world form. These 'many lives / many worlds' are relative to each other in any variation of non conformity. Many parallel to each other, many divergent and many convergent, inside out and symmetric; space and or time-wise forward, backward, sideways or up an down in any gradient direction. They are coincident, congruous, synchronous; fully or partially overlapping time or space wise, within and without each other...... .... but NEVER identical... that is the beauty of absolute diversity. Anyway, it accounts at least for all the variations on the theme of 'human'. It is quintessential to acknowledge that each being has the same direct unquestioned experience of 'I'. I purposely went so far as to be the 'I' ness of a grain of sand and grains of sand, a dead (?) autumn leave, wisps of wind, the entity of an ocean wave, as well as and ultimately 'subnuclear reality' to the instance of the absolute, original and only (p)article and subsequently the experience of its infinitely creative wordline. (...) Each entity has a direct and immediate sense of 'I', common, same and the only real identity in all the diversity, the 'I' divine. All share 'I' of the original and only divine (p)article. All entities in their core have one and the same subject:, in English pronounced as 'I'. There being only one 'I', the divine. Purposely I do not use the word consciousness, as I find that the usual meaning of that word includes an indirectness, a time-lapse, mild characteristics of pathology... evidence of an uncomfortable separation as suffering rather than the creative unification in play. Mark wrote: > I woke up in the middle of the night, and turned on my side to get > more comfortable. I suddenly plunged into some kind of altered state, > and "saw" (mind's eye) that I was suspended in a kind of huge black > space. Before me were many, many little spheres of light. I was most > eager to go to one of them, and I found myself somehow plunging right > into it. "It" was a "life," and I entered it and played myself. I was > actually living it, and at the same time seeing myself exchanging > energy with everything in it -- creating it, so to speak. > > After awhile I left that life, having learned from it, I myself would rather use the words "having appreciated it" as there is no judgement involved, no deficiency actually... > In one life, I was paralyzed with "Lou Gehrig's disease" and I died. > In another life, I remember holding my newborn baby in my arms, so > overcome with joyous emotion, and so proud! In yet another life, I > murdered someone. See that you discover the a-morality in it, at least the non-importance of morality.... That is important to be an unconditional and compassionate bodhisattva. >After each life, I went back into the > void-space, I had nothing but a kind of sacred appreciation of what I > had gone through, never a moment of negative judgment. Yes yes. That is so absolutely true... that sacred appreciation. It is our birthright so to say > All in all, a most astonishing experience! And your comment about > "past" and "future" lives makes a lot of sense to me. I feel as though > this vision was telling me something about what can be learned from > all the lives that are available to us. Again, if I may say so, see if you can replace the word 'learning' with 'appreciating', so as not to fall into the trap of deficient self appraisal and the beginnings self incrimination. There is no room for that in divine life... And some one else wrote so beautifully: > I was very bothered the other day, about the likelihood of me losing my > individuality.. not my ego... but the part in me that I'm growing to love.. > and not wanting that part to dissolve into the oneness... As in, being all > one in the same.... does that make sense? I want the oneness, but I wantto > be myself also within that oneness... --------- Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Wim Borsboom [aurasphere] Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:32 PM Re: Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization Dear Dharma, Oh we have to be so careful with translations or take downs of words spoken by a sage... Most often translators are not enlightened and may have an agenda of their own, they may not hear the truth as direct as expressed. That is an advantage of this internet medium... Sages can write their own words... And when they get misunderstood there are enough checks and balances... Love, Wim Good points Sri Wimji! Although I have no idea of the checks and balances! Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Vicki et al, >>"The individual being which identifies its existence >> with that of the life in the physical body as "I" >> is called the ego. >> The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it. >> Neither can the physical body , which is inert in itself , have >> this ego-sense about it. >> >> Between the two , that is between the Self or pure Consciousness >> and the inert physical body , there arises misteriously >> the ego-sense or "I" notion , the hybrid which is neither >> of them , and this flourishes as an individual being. >> This ego or individual being is all the root of all that is futile >> and undesirable in life. >> Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means ; >> then That which ever is alone remains resplendent. >> This is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization. > >Are these Ramana's own words? It seems to be a very different viewpoint >than expressed in this quotation: > >> But if you cease to identify >> yourself with the body and realize the true Self , >> this confusion will vanish . >> You are eternal and others also will be found to be eternal. >> Until this is realized there will always be grief due to false >> values which are caused by wrong knowledge and wrong >> identification. >Wim: >Oh we have to be so careful with translations or take downs of words spoken >by a sage... Most often translators are not enlightened and may have an >agenda of their own, they may not hear the truth as direct as expressed. This is the kind of thing I meant by my question, Wim. I wonder whether his words were carefully taken down verbatim... or whether sometimes someone wrote them down later from memory... and so on. If I tried to take down someone's words, I would probably mess it up because I don't use shorthand and I don't write fast enough. ) Then there's also the question of translation, as you point out. >Vicki: >I see no contradiction . >snip< If you please tell me where do you see any >contradiction between the two answers ? As the words stand, the first answer says: that the ego is "The individual being which identifies its existence with that of the life in the physical body as "I"; that "The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it", nor does the body; that the ego "arises misteriously" between the Self and the body; that the ego is a "hybrid which is neither of them [self or body]"; that this ego "flourishes as an individual being" - and he specifically says, "This ego or individual being"; that this individual being is "all the root of all that is futile and undesirable in life"; and that "Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means." This seems to be saying that the human person, the individual being, YOU, are the root of all that is futile and undesirable and that you are therefore to be destroyed. ------------ The second statement says: That "You are eternal," "the true Self"; that "this confusion" is "caused by wrong knowledge and wrong identification" of yourself with the body; that "if you cease to identify yourself with the body" and realize who you really are, "realize the true Self"; then "this confusion will vanish." ------------- To me these seem so different that I wouldn't have thought they came from the same person. But perhaps Ramana or a transcriber or a translator was simply using different words and intending to say the same thing. My problem with the first version is that I think it's possible, if we tell people that they should destroy their individual selves... or destroy their egos... or kill their egos... or kill their minds... that someone, through misunderstanding, may actually do damage to himself, either psychologically or physically - or both - by damaging the brain and/or nervous system. It seems much safer to me to speak of mistaken identification with the body or the personality or the "ego image" of this lifetime. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Tony, >I see no contradiction there. The ego comes from outside oneself, How could the ego have come from outside myself, since I am all that is? Since I am All, there is no other source for anything. > what >is it but an illusion of individuality? There is no source outside myself that could have put this illusion into me. All that exists has one source, even illusion. >If there is no 'I' There IS an "I"!!! There is ONE "I." As Ramana said, >snip< > he who sees , the objects seen > and the act of seeing are all manifestations of the same > Consciousness - the "I-I". > >snip< > > How do you recognize yourself now ? Do you have to hold > a mirror up in front of yourself to recognize yourself ? > The awareness is itself the "I". > Realize it and that is the truth. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Vicki, >something about translations - > >many times I found exactly the same set question-answer in different books , >different translations , apparently different too ; >I learned to accept it . Sometimes the arrangement of words can be >disappointing , but the personality of the translator is there too , >and his understanding of the teachings too. Yes! I know what you mean. I want my students to own at least one copy of Patanjali's _Yoga Sutras_. I tell them to go to a good bookstore and look into the various versions available... to see which suits them best. Because each one contains not only commentary by a different author, but also a different translation. So it's important to find a translation you like, and the kind of commentary you like. One that I have is by Satchidananda. He sometimes just doesn't give commentary on some of the sutras... but he does give the Sanskrit, with the meaning of each word. Very valuable. >It happened to me once to put down and give up reading a book >because of the translation , after a few pages I felt a "no" , >it has nothing to do with the writer" , and then I realized >that actually what had to do with the writer was somebody else's >translation, >but as we can't read everything in any writer's language ... That's so true. I began studying Spanish in high school and found that some words simply don't have a good equivalent in English... however you translate them, it isn't right! ) And you don't get the real "flavor" of the prose - and certainly not of the poetry! - unless you read it in the original. That's why I learned ancient Greek... I grew up Christian, and I wanted to read the New Testament in the original language. Now I wish I could also read Hebrew and Sanskrit and Chinese and... oh well. ) >Sometime ago I came across some of Shakespeare's sonets in Romanian >translation >[my mother tongue] ; don't ask ! I felt like crying , >I compared the original one to the translated one , and ... where is >Shakespeare ??! ! Yes, I've tried to translate some poetry, and it seemed to me that you either try to get the meaning right or else get as near the poetic form as possible... but you probably can't do both, you have to concentrate more on one. Then of course in some texts... Shakespeare and Aristophanes, for examples... there are so many double understandings and references to contemporary people/events that it's not possible to handle them all, except with footnotes. >the same happened to me with Ramana's translations , >in his answers there is the interpretor too; >sometimes Ramana spoke , someone else interpreted to the visitor and >a third person wrote down what he heard [and understood ] from the >interpretor. Okay, that's good to know. It explains a lot. >I can feel Ramana beyond all these linguistic exercises and imperfections >, >that's the reason I had problems to understand where you felt a >contradiction >in those answers , Yes. Thanks for this. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Dharma, I like that same version of Patanjali - Swami Satchidananda's - I do the same as you. I use Satchidananda's translation in my yoga and vedanta classes, assign the students to read each sloka. It is pretty easy to understand, and there is a tiny pocket-sized version. Then, for a more scholarly background reference, I use G. Feuerstein's translation. Love, --Greg At 10:32 PM 5/24/01 -0700, Dharma wrote: > >Yes! I know what you mean. I want my students to own at least one copy of >Patanjali's _Yoga Sutras_. I tell them to go to a good bookstore and look >into the various versions available... to see which suits them best. >Because each one contains not only commentary by a different author, but >also a different translation. So it's important to find a translation you >like, and the kind of commentary you like. > >One that I have is by Satchidananda. He sometimes just doesn't give >commentary on some of the sutras... but he does give the Sanskrit, with >the meaning of each word. Very valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Greg, >I like that same version of Patanjali - Swami Satchidananda's - I do the >same as you. I use Satchidananda's translation in my yoga and vedanta >classes, assign the students to read each sloka. It is pretty easy to >understand, and there is a tiny pocket-sized version. Then, for a more >scholarly background reference, I use G. Feuerstein's translation. I don't know Feuerstein... I use the DK/Bailey version. Just because I had first read the DK/Bailey books, and an explanation in those terms seems pretty clear to me. But if a person didn't know the DK/Bailey framework... all the terminology... it might seem pretty abstruse or maybe just off the wall. )) Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Vicki et al, > > >>"The individual being which identifies its existence > >> with that of the life in the physical body as "I" > >> is called the ego. > >> The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it. > >> Neither can the physical body , which is inert in itself , have > >> this ego-sense about it. > >> > >> Between the two , that is between the Self or pure Consciousness > >> and the inert physical body , there arises misteriously > >> the ego-sense or "I" notion , the hybrid which is neither > >> of them , and this flourishes as an individual being. > >> This ego or individual being is all the root of all that is futile > >> and undesirable in life. > >> Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means ; > >> then That which ever is alone remains resplendent. > >> This is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization. > > > >Are these Ramana's own words? It seems to be a very different viewpoint > >than expressed in this quotation: > > > >> But if you cease to identify > >> yourself with the body and realize the true Self , > >> this confusion will vanish . > >> You are eternal and others also will be found to be eternal. > >> Until this is realized there will always be grief due to false > >> values which are caused by wrong knowledge and wrong > >> identification. > > >Wim: > >Oh we have to be so careful with translations or take downs of words spoken > >by a sage... Most often translators are not enlightened and may have an > >agenda of their own, they may not hear the truth as direct as expressed. > > This is the kind of thing I meant by my question, Wim. I wonder whether > his words were carefully taken down verbatim... or whether sometimes > someone wrote them down later from memory... and so on. If I tried to > take down someone's words, I would probably mess it up because I don't use > shorthand and I don't write fast enough. ) Then there's also the > question of translation, as you point out. > > >Vicki: > >I see no contradiction . >snip< If you please tell me where do you see any > >contradiction between the two answers ? > > As the words stand, the first answer says: > > that the ego is "The individual being which identifies its existence with > that of the life in the physical body as "I"; > > that "The Self , which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it", > nor does the body; > > that the ego "arises misteriously" between the Self and the body; > > that the ego is a "hybrid which is neither of them [self or body]"; > > that this ego "flourishes as an individual being" - and he specifically > says, "This ego or individual being"; > > that this individual being is "all the root of all that is futile and > undesirable in life"; and > > that "Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means." > > This seems to be saying that the human person, the individual being, YOU, > are the root of all that is futile and undesirable and that you are > therefore to be destroyed. > ------------ > > The second statement says: > > That "You are eternal," "the true Self"; > > that "this confusion" is "caused by wrong knowledge and wrong > identification" of yourself with the body; > > that "if you cease to identify yourself with the body" and realize who you > really are, "realize the true Self"; > > then "this confusion will vanish." > ------------- > > To me these seem so different that I wouldn't have thought they came from > the same person. But perhaps Ramana or a transcriber or a translator was > simply using different words and intending to say the same thing. > > My problem with the first version is that I think it's possible, if we tell > people that they should destroy their individual selves... or destroy their > egos... or kill their egos... or kill their minds... that someone, through > misunderstanding, may actually do damage to himself, either psychologically > or physically - or both - by damaging the brain and/or nervous system. > > It seems much safer to me to speak of mistaken identification with the body > or the personality or the "ego image" of this lifetime. > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, The ego is just localised consciousness, the wave when it is really the ocean. The feeling within the mind is so strong that in some cases there has been danger of 'death', to the body for the ego to preserve its integrity. ( as Cayce say the soul entity is always ready to take flight).As with Mathru Sri Sarada the realised devotee in a direct line from Ramana through Sri Lakshamana Swami, who was realised in Ramana's presence. So essentially the ego is really the separate human soul. ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Vicki, >> This seems to be saying that the human person, the individual being, >> YOU,are the root of all that is futile and undesirable and that you >> are therefore to be destroyed. > > More or less , yes ; I as the individual am to be "destroyed" > ; I willingly want to let this ego die , but it's not so > easy. a dead ego means no sense of doership and means > Self-realization. What a struggle to destroy something that isn't really an obstacle at all! ) It sounds so difficult! What if you were to suddenly know that you are the one who has lived many lives before and after being Vicki? And more... that you are all the ones who have lived all the many lives ever lived or to be lived? And more... that it is from you that it all arises... that you are in fact THE ONE... the All... the Ground of Being? That's all it is... once you know that, what is the ego image, the personality, to you? A garment, a costume made of yourself to wear in one lifetime... a costume you can wear or not wear, as you like. >Isn't it the aim of a satsangha ? The statement about this satsangh says: > This spiritual discussion group is an open Satsang >snip< > >a is in the best tradition of a joyous spiritual fellowship >for facilitating the Recognition of the Eternal Reality that is One's Own >Self. >snip< > >How beautiful the variety of expressions in so many different traditions! >We embrace this variety with great joy and in fellowship in >a. > ----------------------- > > >No religion or teacher or tradition has a monopoly on the Essential Truth >of Reality >which is Our Own Nature. In this context, a focuses on the >aspirations and experiences of individuals on the spiritual path. Everyone >interested in any of the >snip< > >The discussions are typically expected to focus on >snip< > >Discussion of various teachers and teachings can also be enriching >snip< > >Humor and poetry and other artistic expressions of the spiritual life are >encouraged and supported. >snip< > >May we all nourish and heal each other in the spirit of Compassion, Wisdom >and Love. OM Shanti, Shanti, Shanti. Peace to all living beings. This is what it is to me: a joyous spiritual fellowship. DK says, "The life of the soul is group life." We are a wonderful group entity, a fellowship of love and joy and healing and peace... >Vicki: > when the ego > dies , then there can't be no wrong identification > with the body ,there is no body and nobody, there is only the > Self ; then dying of an ego means the kingdom of heaven > ; nothing to be scared of ; the perishable "I" vanishes into the >eternal "I" I would say: go within yourself... deep, deep... go past all the things that are not your most basic self... past all the thought-forms, the garments of one lifetime, the bits and pieces of tools for living in the world... go past anything you can look at... find and become your most basic "I"... When you know yourself as the eternal "I," then ask if you need to kill an ego or a body... I don't think it will seem important. >> My problem with the first version is that I think it's possible, if >> we tellpeople that they should destroy their individual selves... or >> destroy theiregos... or kill their egos... or kill their minds... that >> someone, throughmisunderstanding, may actually do damage to himself, >> either psychologicallyor physically - or both - by damaging the brain >> and/or nervous system.It seems much safer to me to speak of mistaken >> identification with the bodyor the personality or the "ego image" of this >> lifetime. > > well ,no , I see no need to tell anyone > to kill one's ego or mind, the quest for God is personal ; and "kill" or > "destroy" of the mind/ego have other meanings in the context of a >spiritual > path , no violence involved , the word in itself sounds > violently , but it is only a metaphorical way of speaking > for transcending the mind/ego Not everyone understands it as metaphor... I have known people to go through agonies trying to destroy themselves and anything that seems personal... or mental... or emotional. > if you would say such a thing to a healthy , happy , > rich person, enjoying all the pleasure of life and senses > , "you know what , give all this up and > proceed killing your ego with the method of self-enquiry ", what would > one like this say ? Why say it? Why not tell them they can have so much MORE? ) > ego wants to live but when one's time for the quest will come , then >nothing can stand > against it and you will want nothing more in life than a > "dead" ego or mind; I read what you just posted from Ramana about mind... why not just turn it inward? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Tony, >The ego is just localised consciousness, the wave when it is really >the ocean. The feeling within the mind is so strong that in some cases >there has been danger of 'death', to the body for the ego to preserve >its integrity. ( as Cayce say the soul entity is always ready to >take flight).As with Mathru Sri Sarada the realised devotee in a >direct line from Ramana through Sri Lakshamana Swami, who was realised >in Ramana's presence. So essentially the ego is really the separate >human soul. Yes!!!! In fact, the DK books use the word "Ego" to mean "the soul" and "Egoic body" for "causal body." Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Bailey, now there's an abstruse one! I liked her book called Glamour - a World Problem or something along those lines. Love, --Greg At 08:26 AM 5/25/01 -0700, Dharma wrote: >Hi Greg, > >>I like that same version of Patanjali - Swami Satchidananda's - I do the >>same as you. I use Satchidananda's translation in my yoga and vedanta >>classes, assign the students to read each sloka. It is pretty easy to >>understand, and there is a tiny pocket-sized version. Then, for a more >>scholarly background reference, I use G. Feuerstein's translation. > >I don't know Feuerstein... I use the DK/Bailey version. Just because I >had first read the DK/Bailey books, and an explanation in those terms seems >pretty clear to me. But if a person didn't know the DK/Bailey framework... >all the terminology... it might seem pretty abstruse or maybe just off the >wall. )) > >Love, >Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Vicki, > Hi Dharma , I know. Is it about knowing ? Yes, knowing from your own experience... not intellectual knowing. The best example I can think of is orgasm (forgive me . My best friend was married before I had ever made love or had an orgasm. When she talked about her wedding night, I smiled and nodded and said Ooh and Aah... and didn't have the foggiest idea what she was talking about. )) And I had read books, but that just didn't do it! How do you convey to someone what the experience of orgasm is before they have it? And after that, you don't need to. )) Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 - "Dharma" <deva <> Friday, May 25, 2001 6:11 PM Re: Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization > Hi Vicki, > > > Hi Dharma , I know. Is it about knowing ? > > Yes, knowing from your own experience... not intellectual knowing. > > The best example I can think of is orgasm (forgive me . My best friend > was married before I had ever made love or had an orgasm. When she talked > about her wedding night, I smiled and nodded and said Ooh and Aah... and > didn't have the foggiest idea what she was talking about. )) And I had > read books, but that just didn't do it! How do you convey to someone > what the experience of orgasm is before they have it? And after that, you > don't need to. )) > > Love, > Dharma > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Oops I just send an empty message. I was planning to send a thank you to Dharma, (kind of just between the two of us)... and click the mouse went and away was the message sent before I even typed a word. Thank you Dharma for your wonderful input on this list and Vicky too and Mark... hmmm and now of course I'm guilty of leaving everybody else out, but I'll leave that up to our dear Harsha. Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hey, my dear white wolfe... You wrote: >> brother wim....you need to get laid...you have sex on the brain...>> What? :-)))) What's the matter? You naughty Mark! How did I get mixed in with Vicky and Dharma's exchange... :-) I have no problem with sex at all... Do I have to ask Harsha and Amanda for special permission to talk about it....? I tell you I fully function... I'm told that I'm the best thing since Wonder Bread... The best thing since Wonder Bras Is there a market for Gigolos? I'm wunder bare Am I a late bloomer... ? If I have "sex on the brain" then I have to admit that I wear my brain in the wrong place.. hehehe Harsha help me out... Harshaaaaaa... !!! Is Mark allowed to bring this up? Pretty soon he wants pictures... I have a web cam... I sit here 'grinnekend' (ask Mira what that means in Dutch) Oh man... I tell you... hehehe hehehe hahaha Love you... Wim Mark wrote: > brother wim....you need to get laid...you have sex on the brain... ask > someone something less loaded.....like, how do you desribe the (s)experience > of snow?....and of course tantric ww never indulges in something as low as > sex....not me....no....not ever.....not even on my wedding > night!.....^^~~~~~ > > further up and further in (subliminated sexual message here too!) > > white wolfe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Hi Dharma , no need to forgive ; I like the "spontaneous answer" dialog ; it's the difference between knowing and BEing ; from my experience many people understand and believe in the truth of the scriptures , but .... to embody the scriptures ... that is entirely different , vicki Hi Vicki,> Hi Dharma , I know. Is it about knowing ?Yes, knowing from your own experience... not intellectual knowing.The best example I can think of is orgasm (forgive me . My best friendwas married before I had ever made love or had an orgasm. When she talkedabout her wedding night, I smiled and nodded and said Ooh and Aah... anddidn't have the foggiest idea what she was talking about. )) And I hadread books, but that just didn't do it! How do you convey to someonewhat the experience of orgasm is before they have it? And after that, youdon't need to. ))Love,Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 beloved vicki and dharma.... exactly! much more succintly than i said it to tony (but i just love to be verbose anyway)....i guess if we are to get into minimalism....SHOW ME!.... (but how do you put on a show when the only show is words dancing across a CRT and without the words there is no show)....^^~~~~~ further up and further in, white wolfe p.s. to dharma....things do not look good for us meeting in L.A.....complications....i am off to amsterdam on 6/20 no matter what in between! Re: Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization Hi Dharma , no need to forgive ; I like the "spontaneous answer" dialog ; it's the difference between knowing and BEing ; from my experience many people understand and believe in the truth of the scriptures , but .... to embody the scriptures ... that is entirely different , vicki Hi Vicki,> Hi Dharma , I know. Is it about knowing ?Yes, knowing from your own experience... not intellectual knowing.The best example I can think of is orgasm (forgive me . My best friendwas married before I had ever made love or had an orgasm. When she talkedabout her wedding night, I smiled and nodded and said Ooh and Aah... anddidn't have the foggiest idea what she was talking about. )) And I hadread books, but that just didn't do it! How do you convey to someonewhat the experience of orgasm is before they have it? And after that, youdon't need to. ))Love,Dharma/join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 brother wim....you need to get laid...you have sex on the brain....ask someone something less loaded.....like, how do you desribe the (s)experience of snow?....and of course tantric ww never indulges in something as low as sex....not me....no....not ever.....not even on my wedding night!.....^^~~~~~ further up and further in (subliminated sexual message here too!) white wolfe Re: Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realization > > - > "Dharma" <deva > <> > Friday, May 25, 2001 6:11 PM > Re: Liberation or Enlightenment or > Self-Realization > > > > Hi Vicki, > > > > > Hi Dharma , I know. Is it about knowing ? > > > > Yes, knowing from your own experience... not intellectual knowing. > > > > The best example I can think of is orgasm (forgive me . My best friend > > was married before I had ever made love or had an orgasm. When she talked > > about her wedding night, I smiled and nodded and said Ooh and Aah... and > > didn't have the foggiest idea what she was talking about. )) And I had > > read books, but that just didn't do it! How do you convey to someone > > what the experience of orgasm is before they have it? And after that, you > > don't need to. )) > > > > Love, > > Dharma > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, > perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside > back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than > the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. > Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is > where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal > Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously > arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Hi Wim, >Oops I just send an empty message. >I was planning to send a thank you to Dharma, (kind of just between the two >of us)... >and click the mouse went >and away was the message sent >before I even typed a word. Glad to hear it! I looked and looked... and finally decided your message must be white on white in html and I just couldn't see it. ))) Then Wolf wrote: >brother wim....you need to get laid...you have sex on the brain....ask >someone something less loaded.....like, how do you desribe the (s)experience >of snow?....and of course tantric ww never indulges in something as low as >sex....not me....no....not ever.....not even on my wedding >night!.....^^~~~~~ so I went back and looked again. I even went back to see your last prior message again, but I still haven't found a loaded question from you. >Thank you Dharma for your wonderful input on this list >and Vicky too >and Mark... hmmm and now of course I'm guilty of leaving everybody else out, >but I'll leave that up to our dear Harsha. Thank you too, Wim! I'm so glad you're here. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Dear Harsha.... You wrote: > We believe you Wim! We are all friends here and there is nothing to prove. > Honest. Don't worry Harsha :-) Were you afraid that there would be an avalanche of testimonials... :-) But me still whiningly... Eeh eeh eeh, Mark does not believe me... simp simp simp, sniffff, sniff (snikkend in Dutch :-) Mark has not written me back since his last email... (I'm still whining, snotterend :-) Love, Wim PS. Mark is going to live in Holland... hahaha... Now he will have to learn Dutch...(grinnikend). His name could be "witte wolf" but in Holland they make everything diminuitive (it is a small country) so they will call him "wit wolfje" That is avery nice cuddle name... especially when Mira says, "mijn lief wit wolfje" en als ze hem op zijn snoetje kust... That is: and when she kisses him on his snout. (It sounds way better in Dutch ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Wim Borsboom [aurasphere] What? :-)))) What's the matter? You naughty Mark! How did I get mixed in with Vicky and Dharma's exchange... :-) I have no problem with sex at all... Do I have to ask Harsha and Amanda for special permission to talk about it....? I tell you I fully function... _______________________________ We believe you Wim! We are all friends here and there is nothing to prove. Honest. Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 [Wrote this last night, but my ISP's been out all night.] Hi Wolf, > beloved vicki and dharma.... exactly! much more succintly than >i said it to tony (but i just love to be verbose anyway)....i guess if we >are to get into minimalism....SHOW ME!.... Funny... I was just thinking, as I read an earlier post, of Eliza Doolittle's song in _My Fair Lady_: "Words, words, words! I'm so sick of words! Is that all you blighters can do?? Don't talk of [a (can't remember)], Don't talk of , Don't talk of [c], SHOW ME!!!" >(but how do you put on a show when the only show is words dancing across >a CRT and without the words there is no show)... Exactly! Together in person, you can just smile and look... make a gesture... but here we HAVE to use words... and without all the visual additions. >p.s. to dharma....things do not look good for us meeting >in L.A.....complications....i am off to amsterdam on 6/20 no matter what >in between! Sorry to hear it! If your plans change again, let me know. Maybe you'll both be coming back for a visit, and we can meet then Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.