Guest guest Posted July 14, 1999 Report Share Posted July 14, 1999 Frank says... > > i don't recall reading that in > AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI. because > at the time i was also interested > in finding out about it; since > i've seen this blue-white dot on > dozens of occasions over the course > of 10 years or so...(the last time > was over 7 or 8 years ago). > I think Yogananda describes it as being like the 3rd eye or something. His blue pearl has a white star inside it and is surrounded by a golden glow. The golden light (according to A.H.Almaas) is associated with the heart, merging love, etc. Buddhists like Mahasi Sayadaw (in his "Progress of Insight") place such lights about half way up their scale of interesting things along the way. Other Buddhists say this light (not necessarily blue) is like the fork in the road where you can turn into psychic attainments (mind reading, bilocation, etc.) which they don't recommend but do explain how to accomplish. I think the Sant Mat people (like Kirpal Singh, etc.) have something they call a "blue moon" which is also about half or two thirds the way toward something final but they have a very different schema than the Buddhists. I think I have you beat on blue light sightings Frank. :-)) I continue to see it a few to several times per day for about 8 or 10 years now. One time (about 6 years ago) , while contemplating it's significance as being the cosmic bindu which reflected the contents of every other such bindu (like the jewel net of Indra) it either exploded out to encompass everything or I dove directly into it. That only happened once. I really don't know what (if anything) to make of this light -- but there you have it... Maybe if I burned that incense Ram talked about then I'd see it more often? :-)) I'm not sure why I'd want to but... > however, to my understanding, > any such visions are signposts on > the path, to encourage and inspire > the sadhaka. in of themselves they > are unimportant and *not required*. > this has been emphasized numerous > times by Sri Ramana. I asked a Swami associated with Amritanandamayi about this blue light and one other which was like a whole sky full of suns (very bright, all colors at once but much more, very beautiful not painful) that happened while consciously shifting from sleep to dream state one night. The Swami said the blue light was like a pin hole through the tent and Atman was on the other side (like the sun was right beside the tent) About the other big light he just smiled and said "try to get that one again"... I never did "get it again" but tend to agree with Frank (and Sri Ramana!) that such things are not necessary and don't ipso facto mean very much. I do however believe that turiya must "outshine" the other 3 states before it could be said to be really established. Would be interested in your comments on that Frank (and others of course too) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 1999 Report Share Posted July 15, 1999 a c wrote: > > [...] > > ........I do however believe that turiya must > "outshine" the other 3 states before it could be > said to be really established. i quite agree, if you're alluding to the fact that the other 3 states are then purely witnessed and one is no longer their 'victimized subject.' this observation itself can reveal how the whole matter of maya and its attending phenomena is the product of the Mind of jiva, which is in turn the product of mahamahat (Universal Mind). namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 1999 Report Share Posted July 15, 1999 Hi Frank, you wrote-- > > this observation itself can reveal how the whole > matter of maya and its attending phenomena is the > product of the Mind of jiva, which is in turn the > product of mahamahat (Universal Mind). > sorry for getting a tad academic now but I'm curious how Brahman gives rise to anything (Maya or Mahamahat) if it is eternally and absolutely changeless? If Brahman is alone real then from where does Maya/Mahamahat originate? If Maya either comes from somewhere or something other than Brahman or if Maya actually *is* something different than Brahman then we have duality (ie. Brahman AND Maya) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 1999 Report Share Posted July 15, 1999 a c wrote: > > sorry for getting a tad academic now but I'm > curious how Brahman gives rise to anything (Maya > or Mahamahat) if it is eternally and absolutely > changeless? If Brahman is alone real then from > where does Maya/Mahamahat originate? If Maya > either comes from somewhere or something other > than Brahman or if Maya actually *is* something > different than Brahman then we have duality (ie. > Brahman AND Maya) > yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion concerning this matter. and it seems to be a product of misplaced definitions... according to the Vedantic sastras: Brahman = Nirguna Brahman + Saguna Brahman. The totality of Brahman consists of the Nirguna component (without attributes or gunas), plus the Saguna component (with attributes or gunas). if such ordering of terms proves insufficient in addressing your question, let's analyze it thus: if the Mind [and its works] did not come from Brahman, then where did it come from? is there some other reality that birthed it? if so, then we have a duality indeed! here's a response to someone's question this morning, that relates exactly to this matter: > what is time? > can something exist without a beginning and end ? > does time have a beginning and end ? > either? > neither? > both? > is time just in the manifest? > is the Unmanifest beyond time? > time is a product of Brahman in manifestation, referred to as Saguna Brahman. this and all the products of Brahman--space, causality, Mind, etc, [a.k.a. Maya]--are themselves as ineffable as Brahman Itself. nothing therefore within this phenomenal world--which manifests in *appearance* as Relativity, yet who's substratum is the Absolute [brahman]--can ever be understood by the intellect. attempting to do so is thus equivalent to a dog chasing its tail. here's a quote from the Introduction to YOGA VASISHTHA, translated by Swami Venkatesananda, which states: "The text abounds in repetitions which are, however, not repetitious. If you do not like (or need) repetition, then read just this one verse: This world appearance is a confusion. I think it would be better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it. (I.3.2) **** and here's an excerpt from my ms: This beautiful world is the manifestation of Brahman-- the divine Maya of Brahman's Lila--the manifestation and outbreath of your divine Self Brahman. To call it an illusion that needs to be denied, negated and transcended is in fact a fatal error, which sets up and sustains the blunder of duality. In the sphere of Vedanta, this has arisen from a misunderstanding of the nature of Maya. Again and again it must be emphasized that what in fact *is* illusion involves the belief that the world is real *apart from* its source in Brahman. Therefore, whether we are embodied or disembodied, within or beyond the works of Maya, has no effect on our true Self being. Realizing this is the mission-limit of Advaita Vedanta...the wisdom that all is one. namaste 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.