Real Yoga

[Guest guest]

On 8/31/01 at 2:28 PM Dharma wrote:

 

ºGood grief, Tony!!! Picking apart someone else's photo? Bashing people

ºon

ºthe grounds of appearance?? This is not acceptable behavior in a

ºsatsangha. It is not courteous, not loving, just nasty.

º

ºOh well, why should I be surprised?

 

The hope that perhaps, things will change

But perhaps he reads "satsangria" instead of satsangha

- "wrong" group

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

> Good grief, Tony!!! Picking apart someone else's photo? Bashing

people on

> the grounds of appearance?? This is not acceptable behavior in a

> satsangha. It is not courteous, not loving, just nasty.

>

> Oh well, why should I be surprised?

> >

> >The ineffable Brahman is described as satchitananda in the

> >Upanishads. Sagauna Brahman has all the attributes of

> >creation, but the Upanishadic sages have reserved the term

> >satchitananda for Nirguna Brahman only,

> >

> >However, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you feel

> >yourself qualified to reform the Upanishads. It's a

> >wonder that just won't cease unfortunately.

> >

> >> Even the creation hymn of the Rig Veda, wonders whether God knows

or

> >> doesn't.......ONS......Tony.

> >

> >God knows He exists, and that's all He needs to know for the

> >universe to exist as well.

 

Namaste Glo,

 

Jumping the gun again!! I was not picking jody apart because of his

photo. I have spent quite sometime in India as you well know, his

dress is a badge, a signal, a message of what he is religiously. If he

isn't that then he is wearing the wrong gear that's all. If he walked

down the street in India nobody would mistake him for a saivite but a

vaishnaivite probably.

 

As far as the Upanishads, most are lost, up to a thousand perhaps or

more. The present ones are contradictory at different levels, for they

were written to different audiences at different levels and times. If

you read them you will immediately notice the seeming contradictions.

 

Saguna and Nirguna are one in the end anyway, separating the iron bar

from its heat is difficult.

 

A guna is an attribute, sat-cit-ananda is Saguna by definition. As is

obvious here, on this list, the sages could only write in the medium

and milieu that people could understand. Same with the Buddha and

Nirvana, he was accused of being an atheist, in a religious sense.

 

Believe me Nirguna doesn't 'know', by definition. Saguna 'knows Maya'.

 

" Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself or perhaps

it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only

he knows-or perhaps he does not know." Rig Veda. 7, Nasadiya.

 

Ultimately there is only Nirguna, all else is an unreal illusion. It

never happened at all. Check Ramana on this. RE: Creation etc.

ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

> DEar Tony,

>

> You have mistaken Dharma's message for mine. Please look back to

find my post.

 

Namaste Glo, et Dharma,

 

I apologise profusedly, perhaps we should all snip

more..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

DEar Tony,

You have mistaken Dharma's message for mine. Please look back to find my post.

Glo

- Tony O'Clery

Friday, August 31, 2001 6:17 PM

Re: Real Yoga

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:> Good grief,

Tony!!! Picking apart someone else's photo? Bashing people on> the

grounds of appearance?? This is not acceptable behavior in a>

satsangha. It is not courteous, not loving, just nasty.> > Oh well,

why should I be surprised?> >> >The ineffable Brahman is described as

satchitananda in the> >Upanishads. Sagauna Brahman has all the

attributes of> >creation, but the Upanishadic sages have reserved the

term> >satchitananda for Nirguna Brahman only,> >> >However, it

doesn't surprise me one bit that you feel> >yourself qualified to

reform the Upanishads. It's a> >wonder that just won't cease

unfortunately.> >> >> Even the creation hymn of the Rig Veda, wonders

whether God knows or> >> doesn't.......ONS......Tony.> >> >God knows

He exists, and that's all He needs to know for the> >universe to

exist as well.Namaste Glo,Jumping the gun again!! I was not picking

jody apart because of his photo. I have spent quite sometime in India

as you well know, his dress is a badge, a signal, a message of what he

is religiously. If he isn't that then he is wearing the wrong gear

that's all. If he walked down the street in India nobody would

mistake him for a saivite but a vaishnaivite probably.As far as the

Upanishads, most are lost, up to a thousand perhaps or more. The

present ones are contradictory at different levels, for they were

written to different audiences at different levels and times. If you

read them you will immediately notice the seeming

contradictions.Saguna and Nirguna are one in the end anyway,

separating the iron bar from its heat is difficult.A guna is an

attribute, sat-cit-ananda is Saguna by definition. As is obvious

here, on this list, the sages could only write in the medium and

milieu that people could understand. Same with the Buddha and

Nirvana, he was accused of being an atheist, in a religious sense.

Believe me Nirguna doesn't 'know', by definition. Saguna 'knows

Maya'." Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself or

perhaps it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest

heaven, only he knows-or perhaps he does not know." Rig Veda. 7,

Nasadiya.Ultimately there is only Nirguna, all else is an unreal

illusion. It never happened at all. Check Ramana on this. RE:

Creation

etc.ONS...Tony./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

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> Again it is obvious you are a devotee of the Saguna

> and there is nothing wrong with that.

> Just a different path from Nirguna advaita that's all.

 

I wrote:

> Are you telling us that you are on the "Nirguna Advaita" path?

 

You wrote:

> On the advaita path. Hopefully culminating in Nirguna/Nirvana..

 

Your discrimination between "this path and that path" keeps you from taking

the path that you think you are on.

 

Y

 

Look at that Y.

In a way, your discrimination between Saguna and Nirguna would put you near

the bottom leg of that Y looking upward, seeing divergence only.

You are actually not even entering the intersection.

You are also showing clear signs of a mind-body split, as I have suggested

to you already. That would put you actually near both top legs of that Y,

looking downward. Again seeing divergence only, again not even entering the

intersection.

 

Look at it this way, Tony, there is not even a fork in the road, there is

not even a road. There is no Y. Why should there be!?

Stop the quest, stop the skepticism, stop the questioning. Give it up. By

quitting all that, you actually get rid of all those illusive sheaths in one

fell swoop.

> After I have cleansed my sheaths hahahahaha..

 

No cleaning needed:

no T

no O

no N

no Y

 

No T intersection

No O vicious circle

No N zigzagging

No Y YOU...

 

Love, Wim

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001