A painted fisher cannot catch a real fish

October 7, 2006

, "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy

wrote:

>>

> I'm being told : Change implied complete transformation and not the

> continuity of a modified thought. I'm trying to grasp this whole

> idea.

>

I would see it like this the ususal cognition is like walking through

an exhibition and looking at the pictures or like being in a cinema.

sadhana is becoming an artist an artist contrary to the vistor, is

more aware of the canvas and the paint than the completed picture.

The only transformation worth that name is the change from a state of

being immersed and identified with the changes, into a state that is

aware that is aware of the canvas (shiva) and the paint (devi), or the

projection and reflection.

That is why it is not possible to "go fishing for the Paramatma" that

only results in a painted fisher catching a painted fish.

To get out of the recursive state of self referential one has to step

out of the picture alltogether, that is not possible by any conscious

effort, only by anugraha of either devi or guru.

October 8, 2006

Namaste.

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha wrote:

> I would see it like this the ususal cognition is like walking

through

> an exhibition and looking at the pictures or like being in a

cinema.

> sadhana is becoming an artist an artist contrary to the vistor,

is

> more aware of the canvas and the paint than the completed

picture.

What then is the point of being an artist, and learning to

complete a picture?

The canvas and the paint were already there before you started

painting...

You say a painted fisher cannot catch a real fish.

What if that painted fisher is more than just paint?

What if it is the visible expression of a questing spirit, a spirit that

seeks and finds... perhaps the questing spirit of the painter,

perhaps the questing spirit of someone else the painter knew.

In either case, real enough to find real treasure, and catch real

fish...

Om Shantih

Colin

October 8, 2006

, "colin777au" <colinr

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> , "mahahradanatha"

> <mahahradanatha@> wrote:

>

> > I would see it like this the ususal cognition is like walking

> through

> > an exhibition and looking at the pictures or like being in a

> cinema.

> > sadhana is becoming an artist an artist contrary to the vistor,

> is

> > more aware of the canvas and the paint than the completed

> picture.

>

> What then is the point of being an artist, and learning to

> complete a picture?

The is no logical reason why the universe exists (or the painter

paints) it exists because of the digit of desire (kamakala) at least

according to Shakta Philosophy, which is the topic of this list.

The artist is a symbol of a person being aware that the picture lacks

ultimate reality and is his symbolic creation.

The painted fisherman is not aware of this, he think he is real, he

is symbolising the state of a person attached to ideas of I my me and

mine, opinions and social status.

The only fish he can catch is therefore one that is as "real" as his

limited mind and idea of what a fish should be(since he is apinted he

only knows painted fish). Same is with a seeker for truth he can only

catch a "truth" that is small enough to fit his preconceived ideas.

To catch real fish he has to give up his cherished ideas otherwise he

wouldn´t even be interested in a real fish.

With impermanent desires we will only catch impermanent objects of

our desires.

Thats why i said in the other posting, Kama Artha and Dharma are

confused with Moksha. It is legitimate to fulfill impermamnet

desires, you can even do Sadhana to fulfill these, Shakta Philosophy

has no problem with that, nonetheless it is not moksha or aimend at

moksha, even if the person conceives that his efforts are directed

that way.

>

> The canvas and the paint were already there before you started

> painting...

>

> You say a painted fisher cannot catch a real fish.

>

> What if that painted fisher is more than just paint?

The fisherman that is more than paint will not use his limited mind

body and thought, opinions and social status to empower his effort to

catch something he can conceive of.

As i undertstand it the Shakta way is to sacrifice the limited

efforts and ideas of the self, and to even sacrifice that sacrifice,

or renunciate the renunciation, this burning of Karma Kleshas and

obstructions, prepares the best circumstances for Transformation to

take place of its own accord.

Only then it is a real change. I think that is Noras Topic, and if i

read her latest posting i think i was right and it is confirmend.

> What if it is the visible expression of a questing spirit, a spirit

>that

> seeks and finds... perhaps the questing spirit of the painter,

> perhaps the questing spirit of someone else the painter knew.

>

> In either case, real enough to find real treasure, and catch real

> fish...

>

If you followed my points what you say i consider an illusion, nobody

is real enough to catch Paramtama Moksha Brahmavidya whatever you

call it. How can something unreal catch something real?

It can only be the other way around.

Can you teach a fire how to burn? No, you cannot, you only prepare

the required circumstances to the best of your ability, and than hope

the probability is high enough that it catches but burn it must on

its own.

Same is with Transformation or Sadhana which aim is transformation.

It is Anugraha in the end, no amount of effort will ever be able to

produce anything greater than yourself, this is a logickal

impossibility.

All you can ever produce on your own , will only make you more proud

of yourself and your accomplishments and will deepen the seperation

and partcularisation instead of dissolving it.

Only a few people realise that the ultimate aims and practices of

indic religions aim at a complete dissolution of ego.

One can simply decide to ignore this no problem most people take this

convienient way.

Sacrifice is a very important element of Shakta Tradition.

The real ultimate Bali is not sacrificing other Beings but your own

Ego and limited desires and ideas.

October 9, 2006

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha wrote:

> [....]

> With impermanent desires we will only catch impermanent objects of

> our desires.

> Thats why i said in the other posting, Kama Artha and Dharma are

> confused with Moksha. It is legitimate to fulfill impermamnet

> desires, you can even do Sadhana to fulfill these, Shakta Philosophy

> has no problem with that, nonetheless it is not moksha or aimend at

> moksha, even if the person conceives that his efforts are directed

> that way.

> [....]

This is interesting [and I do understand I've picked up on what isn't

the major point in your posting.]

While (I think) I understand what you said, it leads (I think) to some

odd conclusions.

Non-Hindu religions have non-Hindu goals, by definition. But should

we really judge other religions, paths, or spiritual systems by Hindu

standards?

Wicca, as I understand it, doesn't have a stated or easily

identifiable soteriological goal -- Wiccans believe they reincarnate

over and over again with no end. The largely unstated goal might be

communion with the divine as one conceives it. I think it's a bit of

a stretch to assign salvific status to that.

So, a Wiccan's efforts (by his or her definition, anyway) aren't

directed towards a Hindu conception of moksha. But does that mean his

efforts don't have spiritual goals? In his understanding they

certainly do.

Similarly, New Agers rarely discuss a final goal, although they do

talk about direction -- "growth", "healing", "my path", and even

"spiritual advancement." The terms "enlightenment" and

"self-realization" pop up here and there, but in light of the New age

penchant for personalized concepts of self, reality, and divinity, the

words necessarily have different (non-Hindu) meanings. No moksha

here, either (or maybe the goal is simply out of view), but does that

mean we are to dismiss the whole ball of wax as unspiritual?

October 9, 2006

, "msbauju" <msbauju wrote:

>

> , "mahahradanatha"

> <mahahradanatha@> wrote:

>

> > [....]

> > With impermanent desires we will only catch impermanent objects

of

> > our desires.

> > Thats why i said in the other posting, Kama Artha and Dharma are

> > confused with Moksha. It is legitimate to fulfill impermamnet

> > desires, you can even do Sadhana to fulfill these, Shakta

Philosophy

> > has no problem with that, nonetheless it is not moksha or aimend

at

> > moksha, even if the person conceives that his efforts are

directed

> > that way.

> > [....]

>

> This is interesting [and I do understand I've picked up on what

isn't

> the major point in your posting.]

>

> While (I think) I understand what you said, it leads (I think) to

some

> odd conclusions.

>

> Non-Hindu religions have non-Hindu goals, by definition. But should

> we really judge other religions, paths, or spiritual systems by

Hindu

> standards?

> Wicca, as I understand it, doesn't have a stated or easily

> identifiable soteriological goal -- Wiccans believe they reincarnate

> over and over again with no end. The largely unstated goal might be

> communion with the divine as one conceives it. I think it's a bit

of

> a stretch to assign salvific status to that.

>

> So, a Wiccan's efforts (by his or her definition, anyway) aren't

> directed towards a Hindu conception of moksha. But does that mean

his

> efforts don't have spiritual goals? In his understanding they

> certainly do.

>

> Similarly, New Agers rarely discuss a final goal, although they do

> talk about direction -- "growth", "healing", "my path", and even

> "spiritual advancement." The terms "enlightenment" and

> "self-realization" pop up here and there, but in light of the New

age

> penchant for personalized concepts of self, reality, and divinity,

the

> words necessarily have different (non-Hindu) meanings. No moksha

> here, either (or maybe the goal is simply out of view), but does

that

> mean we are to dismiss the whole ball of wax as unspiritual?

>

I was zoomend in on Hindu Shaiva and Shakta- philosophy and its

definition of Moksha.

Which is focussed on the identity of the cognition of the universe

with devi and the cogniser as shiva.

The question of what to do with the limited self arises because in

this philosophy the universe is conceived as a more powerful and

bigger entity than your particularised self, though at the same time

it is identical with the cogniser.

Of course there are differences between shaktism and new age and

wiccan ideas.

Discussions about the final goals of indic religions certainly has no

impact on whether one is spiritual or not.

And even inside Shaktism your path is wide open, nobody will suggest

to you to become a renunciate or that you must aim to reach moksha.

But ifsomeone says he wants to reach moksha, or wants to achieve a

real transformation, there are other rules that come into play. In

fact it is unusual to try to achive final goals because most people

have all kind of worldly karmas and cannot do this, there is nothing

wrong or unspiritual about looking to achieve material happiness

pleasure and fulfillment in your life and for those you love.

Nonetheless it is important if one wants to understand Shakta

Philosophy that, achiving health growth, self fullfillment, is not

moksha.

That is my whole point, i don´t mean to denigrate other religions and

their aims just because they are different.

October 10, 2006

Namaste.

> If you followed my points what you say i consider an illusion,

nobody

> is real enough to catch Paramtama Moksha Brahmavidya

whatever you

> call it. How can something unreal catch something real?

> It can only be the other way around.

The person who first spoke of casting a net mentioned "being

inspired by the bhakti poetry of Ramprasad Sen" .

Do you know the song "dub de man kali b'le", where Ramprasad

urges his own mind to become a diver, searching for treasure

underwater?

If you do know the song, what do you make of it?

> Only a few people realise that the ultimate aims and practices

of

> indic religions aim at a complete dissolution of ego.

Yet there is another song by Ramprasad, "ar kaj amar kasi",

where he says:

"Of what use is nirvana? Water mingles in water.

Oh mind! Becoming sugar is not desirable; I am fond of eating

sugar."

(J.Sinha's translation, from his book _Ramaprasada's

Devotional Songs_; Sinha Publishing, Calcutta, 1966. Song 25)

Om Shantih

Colin

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha wrote:

>

> , "colin777au"

<colinr@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste.

> >

> > ,

"mahahradanatha"

> > <mahahradanatha@> wrote:

> >

> > > I would see it like this the ususal cognition is like walking

> > through

> > > an exhibition and looking at the pictures or like being in a

> > cinema.

> > > sadhana is becoming an artist an artist contrary to the

vistor,

> > is

> > > more aware of the canvas and the paint than the completed

> > picture.

> >

> > What then is the point of being an artist, and learning to

> > complete a picture?

>

> The is no logical reason why the universe exists (or the painter

> paints) it exists because of the digit of desire (kamakala) at

least

> according to Shakta Philosophy, which is the topic of this list.

>

> The artist is a symbol of a person being aware that the picture

lacks

> ultimate reality and is his symbolic creation.

>

> The painted fisherman is not aware of this, he think he is real,

he

> is symbolising the state of a person attached to ideas of I my

me and

> mine, opinions and social status.

>

> The only fish he can catch is therefore one that is as "real" as

his

> limited mind and idea of what a fish should be(since he is

apinted he

> only knows painted fish). Same is with a seeker for truth he

can only

> catch a "truth" that is small enough to fit his preconceived

ideas.

> To catch real fish he has to give up his cherished ideas

otherwise he

> wouldn´t even be interested in a real fish.

>

> With impermanent desires we will only catch impermanent

objects of

> our desires.

> Thats why i said in the other posting, Kama Artha and Dharma

are

> confused with Moksha. It is legitimate to fulfill impermamnet

> desires, you can even do Sadhana to fulfill these, Shakta

Philosophy

> has no problem with that, nonetheless it is not moksha or

aimend at

> moksha, even if the person conceives that his efforts are

directed

> that way.

> >

> > The canvas and the paint were already there before you

started

> > painting...

> >

> > You say a painted fisher cannot catch a real fish.

> >

> > What if that painted fisher is more than just paint?

>

> The fisherman that is more than paint will not use his limited

mind

> body and thought, opinions and social status to empower his

effort to

> catch something he can conceive of.

>

> As i undertstand it the Shakta way is to sacrifice the limited

> efforts and ideas of the self, and to even sacrifice that sacrifice,

> or renunciate the renunciation, this burning of Karma Kleshas

and

> obstructions, prepares the best circumstances for

Transformation to

> take place of its own accord.

> Only then it is a real change. I think that is Noras Topic, and if i

> read her latest posting i think i was right and it is confirmend.

>

> > What if it is the visible expression of a questing spirit, a spirit

> >that

> > seeks and finds... perhaps the questing spirit of the painter,

> > perhaps the questing spirit of someone else the painter

knew.

> >

> > In either case, real enough to find real treasure, and catch

real

> > fish...

> >

> If you followed my points what you say i consider an illusion,

nobody

> is real enough to catch Paramtama Moksha Brahmavidya

whatever you

> call it. How can something unreal catch something real?

> It can only be the other way around.

>

> Can you teach a fire how to burn? No, you cannot, you only

prepare

> the required circumstances to the best of your ability, and than

hope

> the probability is high enough that it catches but burn it must

on

> its own.

> Same is with Transformation or Sadhana which aim is

transformation.

>

> It is Anugraha in the end, no amount of effort will ever be able

to

> produce anything greater than yourself, this is a logickal

> impossibility.

>

> All you can ever produce on your own , will only make you more

proud

> of yourself and your accomplishments and will deepen the

seperation

> and partcularisation instead of dissolving it.

>

> Only a few people realise that the ultimate aims and practices

of

> indic religions aim at a complete dissolution of ego.

> One can simply decide to ignore this no problem most people

take this

> convienient way.

> Sacrifice is a very important element of Shakta Tradition.

> The real ultimate Bali is not sacrificing other Beings but your

own

> Ego and limited desires and ideas.

>

October 10, 2006

, "colin777au" <colinr

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

Namaste colin

>

> The person who first spoke of casting a net mentioned "being

> inspired by the bhakti poetry of Ramprasad Sen" .

>

> Do you know the song "dub de man kali b'le", where Ramprasad

> urges his own mind to become a diver, searching for treasure

> underwater?

>

> If you do know the song, what do you make of it?

I have taken a look at both and they contain a lot of hidden

references to ritual and meditaion methods. Therefore my reply has

become a little long i hope you don´t mind.

>

> > Only a few people realise that the ultimate aims and practices

> of

> > indic religions aim at a complete dissolution of ego.

>

> Yet there is another song by Ramprasad, "ar kaj amar kasi",

> where he says:

>

> "Of what use is nirvana? Water mingles in water.

> Oh mind! Becoming sugar is not desirable; I am fond of eating

> sugar."

>

> (J.Sinha's translation, from his book _Ramaprasada's

> Devotional Songs_; Sinha Publishing, Calcutta, 1966. Song 25)

I think your reference to that poem or song, might imply that you

believe Ramaprasad may have had a differing opinion about the

limited self and the need to abolish it? I am not shure but i will

answer accordingly.

In my opinion he is far more radical in his approach towards

limited desires and very determined about the need to destroy all

traces of Self centeredness. But what other would one expect from

him? Of course a radical bhakta like Ramprasad, behaves like a

Sadhu and sacrifices all ideas of I mine and me, he has no self

and no possesions and no need for them.

Lets look at the quotation in its context:

Before he comments on his Samadhi he writes:

"All sins are destroyed by Kali's name

as heaps of cotton are burnt by fire.

How can a headless man have a headache?"

What is here translated as "sins" is the limited self and the Klesha

or arishadvargas the six enemies which develop out of attachment and

ideas of mine me etc. in the second sentence he makes shure we

understand what is meant by sins and that he is not only talking

about non-virtuos actions like lying, stealing etc. he clarifies

his idea of self sacrifice as apreliminary to samadhi, with the

sentence:

"How can a headless man have a headache?"

Now comes your quote, which i think you mean that he does not want

to give up his self, please consider that the "I" he now refers to is

not anymore the limited particular "I" this limited "I" has been

burned, and the head was chopped off already, in the preceding

paragraph.

Thats why he begins talking about the varieties of Samadhi, that can

only occur if "the head is chopped off" describing a Samadhi

specific to Shaktas.

Of what use is nirvana?

Water mingles in water.

O mind! becoming sugar is not desirable;

I am fond of eating sugar.

He is referring to a state of samadhi which is not a merging

inwardly into the formless, but a realisation of the identity of the

universe and the process of cognition with shakti. this is samadhi

with open eyes. This is matter of personal preference, another

samadhi that is highly valued among shaktas is the Samadhi where you

pulse between both, formless Samadhi with closed eyes AND

contemplation of the Universe as Shakti with open eyes apparently

Ramaprasad is fully devoted to the form aspect of devi and a form of

samadhi with open eyes which he considers more advanced as the one

with closed eyes.

I add here another Poem of Ramprasad which is a good example of the

emergence of the real self only after the limited self has been

destroyed.

The vision of Kali kindles the fire of unitive wisdom,

burning down conventional barriers,

pervading minds and worlds with light,

revealing her exalted beauty

as universal flower garden

and universal cremation ground,

where lovers merge with Mother Reality,

experiencing the single taste of nonduality.

This ardent poet of the Goddess cries:

"Every lover longs only

to gaze upon the unique Beloved.

Why close your eyes?

Why disappear into formless trance?"

As you can see in this poem also before one can experiences Samadhi

the self, ideas of my and mine have to be burnend. discarded:

Ramprasad sings:

The vision of Kali kindles the fire of unitive wisdom, burning down

conventional barriers,

After this sacrifice what appears as the cremation ground (the place

where the ego is offered), is revealed as a flower garden.

Abhinavagupta writes about the meaning of the cremation ground:

Who does not become perfect by entering in that which is the support

of all the gods, in the cremation ground whose form is empty,

the abode of the siddhas and yoginìs, in the greatly terrifying place

of their play where all bodies (vigraha) are consumed? [That place

is] filled with the circle of one's own rays (svararasmimandala),

where dense darkness (dhvàntasantata) is destroyed, the solitary

abode of bliss, liberated from all discursive thought (vikalpa), and

filled with innumerable pyres (citi ); in the cremation ground

terrifying to consciousness (citi )

RAmprasad goes on and says:

revealing her exalted beauty as universal flower garden

and universal cremation ground, where lovers merge with Mother

Reality, experiencing the single taste of nonduality.

the next verse:

Why close your eyes? Why disappear into formless trance?"

Refers again to his preference of samadhi with open eyes (unmìlana-

samàdhi) as opposed to the inward form of samadhi with closed eyes

called nimìlana-samadhi.

Of what use is nirvana? Water mingles in water.

O mind! becoming sugar is not desirable;

I am fond of eating sugar.

This does not mean that his limited "I" is experiencing this samadhi.

He is again only stating his preference for realising the nature of

Shakti as containend in the objects of the universe and the act of

sense cognition, he is not talking about his limited ego here, he has

left that already in the precending paragraph. The Samadhi of

Ramprasad is an experience of the "non particularised" self, the

individual particular self can never encounter Kali. Even Shiva has

to assumes the form of shava (corpse) when uniting with Kali.

for better understanding of the other song you quote i also provide

the context:

Taking the name of Kali, dive deep down, O mind

into the heart's fathomless depths,

Where many a precious gem lies hid.

But never believe the bed of ocean bare of gems

If in the first few dives you fail;

with firm resolve and self control-

dive deep and make your way to Mother Kali's realm.

Down in the ocean depths of heavenly wisdom lie

the wonderous pearls of peace, O mind

And you yourself can gather them,

If you have but pure love and follow the scriptures rule.

Within those oceans depths, as well,

six alligators lurk- desire anger and the rest-

Swimming about in search of prey.

Smear yourself with the turmeric of discrimination,

The very smell of it will shield you from their jaws.

Upon the ocean bed lie strewn

Unnumbered pearls and precious gems,

Plunge in, says Ramprasad, and gather up handfuls there!

The name for sea, lake, or pond and making a Sound is the same

(hradah) the roar of waves are likened to the mantra currents, so it

is often Shakti in the form of Mantra when,lake, sea, ocean, water or

a pond is mentioned.

It is said in the shiva sutras:

1.22 mahAhradAnusandhAnAnmantravIryAnubhavaH .

22. By concentrating on the transcendent lake of female energy,

mantra life is obtained

Shiva Sutras (trsl by mike magee)

The root from which the word hrada is derived is hrAda – avyakte

Sabde – to sound, to roar. That which makes indistinct, undefined

sounds is called hradah. That which is huge, and makes this sound is

mahA-hradah. The term is used to refer to a deep lake, an ocean

etc.

There is also a reference to physical laws contained here, sound is

a wave in air, similar to waves in the water. Modern quanum mechanics

offer some food for thought also: There is a wave /particle duality,

consider the wave function in quantum mechanics, waves are non

localized, and every particle, which is localized, potentialy

contains in itself the possibility to show wave functions, when

probability shifts towards non-particularisation, similar laws maybe

apply to methods of meditation or subtle koshas.

In case someone may be doubting my interpretation of this song,

Ramprasad has been so kind to add that one cannot just go and dive,

on one´s own, but that one must use Kali´s Name, (Mantra) to dive.

What Ramprasad means by deep is that one must not only dive shallow,

and use the outward uttered speech, but descend deeper and become

more subtle.

I think here he describes a method of Kundalini Yoga or Nada Yoga. He

often refers to Kundalini in his poems.

Begin by using ordinary sound or spoken mantra (name of Kali)

uttering it with your tongue and your throat.

Merging and dissolving Mind within that gross sound power of the

Mantra by utilising its wave nature, you canreach beyond ego, and

merge into Anahata Nada (subtle "unstruck" soundwave) which is

situated in the body in heart chakra and is one form of devi (in his

case of Kali)

So he dives downwards from the locality of the mind intent and waking

state localized in the brain, to the heart chakra , the locality of

will and emotion and the place of the individual soul in dreamstate

and merges with the wave soundcurrent residing here, which is silent

but localized vibration.

Down in the ocean depths of heavenly wisdom lie

the wonderous pearls of peace, O mind

And you yourself can gather them,

If you have but pure love and follow the scriptures rule.

But that is not enough now he dives deeper than the heart and

contact an even more subtle expresssion of sound shakti, residing

at the place where the "jewel" is strung on the sushumnna,

consciousness acesses this point normally only while in deep sleep or

coma. This stage his hinted by the Gem or treasure he mentions you

can find, that Gem is located in the Manipura chakra = Manipura

(Mani= jewel, gem pura = city, realm).

"six alligators lurk- desire anger and the rest-" These six enemies

are , desire , anger, greed, delusion, pride and jealousy. 5 of them

correspond to the 5 Kleshas of Yoga and theSiddha mata, which are

attachment klesha, corresponding to desire, aversion klesha

corresponding to anger, ignorance klesha corresponding to delusion,

ego klesha corresponding to pride, clinging to liffe corresponding to

greed and jealousy

They all develop out of the notion of a limited self, ahamkara or

asmita (ego or pride of your own achievements.)

When considering the six enemies one must bear in mind that the word

Kama in this context means Attachment not erotic feelings.

There is something which i think is interesting, it looks like all

threads in the list in the moment are interconnected, the levels of

speech Ramprasad poem is about, contain the same idea as the

three "padas" of the Gayatri and so here we are provided with

another explanation of the nama, only this time it applies to

Kundalini Shakti and her manifestation in the three levels of speech,

vaikhari, madhyama and pashyanti and their corresponding chakras,

the corresponding three feet are here the"three brains" the

intellectual emotional and motoric centers of a human being who are

strung on the sushumna like pearls on a mala. As long as feelings and

ideas of i mine and me are nurtured the energy current cannot move in

this central nadi between these centers, but is deflected by

attachment and aversion into the left and right side nadis and that

way the flow is stopped in between by the so called granthis or

knots, thats why Ramprasad warns us that we must pay attention:

Smear yourself with the turmeric of discrimination.The very smell of

it will shield you from their jaws.

The enigma remains : what is the fourth state?

Hope this helps

October 14, 2006

Dear Mahahradanatha:

Your comments last week about Ramprasad and types of samadhi were very illuminating to

me. I'm still trying to figure out this selflessness business, and I value your perspective.

At the suggestion of some archived articles from this group, I've now begun to explore Hatha

Yoga as an addition to my sadhana. One idea that I've gleaned from my Yoga readings is

learning not to ignore what's going on in my body, as a form of ahimsa, which eventually

leads me to become more aware of and compassionate towards the world around me. I see a

similar idea in commentary I've read on the Khadamala Stotram: the worshipper internalizes

the Devis and Yoginis of the outer enclosures, progressing inward towards union with Shakti,

the ultimate reality. Moreover, isn't it a basic doctrine of Tantra that the body/self is the

Cosmos in microcosm? All of these teachings suggest to me that spiritual progess (in Shakti

worship or otherwise) involves not negating, renouncing, conquering, shutting down or

otherwise turning my back on my self, but rather becoming more aware of myself, ultimately

leading to complete awareness of Shakti.

October 15, 2006

>All of these teachings suggest to me that spiritual progess (in Shakti

>worship or otherwise) involves not negating, renouncing, conquering,

>shutting down or

>otherwise turning my back on my self, but rather becoming more aware

>of myself, ultimately leading to complete awareness of Shakti.

Only that the idea of what "my self" is may undergo undreamed-of

alterations... 8>)

Max

--

Max Dashu

Art in Goddess Reverence

http://www.maxdashu.net

October 16, 2006

, "willendorfer"

<willendorfer wrote:

>

> Dear Mahahradanatha:

>

> Your comments last week about Ramprasad and types of samadhi were

very illuminating to

> me. I'm still trying to figure out this selflessness business, and

I value your perspective.

>

> At the suggestion of some archived articles from this group, I've

now begun to explore Hatha

> Yoga as an addition to my sadhana. One idea that I've gleaned

from my Yoga readings is

> learning not to ignore what's going on in my body, as a form of

ahimsa, which eventually

> leads me to become more aware of and compassionate towards the

world around me. I see a

> similar idea in commentary I've read on the Khadamala Stotram: the

worshipper internalizes

> the Devis and Yoginis of the outer enclosures, progressing inward

towards union with Shakti,

> the ultimate reality. Moreover, isn't it a basic doctrine of

Tantra that the body/self is the

> Cosmos in microcosm? All of these teachings suggest to me that

spiritual progess (in Shakti

> worship or otherwise) involves not negating, renouncing,

conquering, shutting down or

> otherwise turning my back on my self, but rather becoming more

aware of myself, ultimately

> leading to complete awareness of Shakti.

>

Dear Robert

I will try to the best of my ability without being too verbose, this

subject is vast and hard to explain.

You write "negating, renouncing, conquering, shutting down or

otherwise turning my back...." Who is doing all these actions you

describe if not the Limited Self/Mind itself? A sage whose attention

is not focussed on his self will not negate, renounce, shut down, or

turn his back on his self because his aim is to calm down all these

diverse actions that also belong to the limited self.

And again i mus insist that we do not at all need to behave like a

Saint or even try to imitate his behaviour, nobody is forcing

anybody in Hinduism to do things that are not appropriate to his

environment karma or state of mind. Only a very small percentage of

people strive to achieve the higher aims. There is no common rule

that all Shaktas have to follow this, nor does anybody imply they

should strive to reach moksha in this life, and i also am not

recommending this, i only try to explain that moksha implies

disssolving the mind/self.

Contrary to other Religions one and the same aim is not recommended

for everybody.

I understand that there are people in the modern urban western and

eastern society that by their circumstances ofliving become alienated

from their own body, their feelings, their family and friends and

that many are therefore not experiencing happiness and contentment

anymore but suffer.

Some aspects of Yoga, Meditation and eastern Philosophys and

Religion can give some relief and counteract these adverse effects

of modern civilisation.

In the circumstances some find themnselves in, it means a lot if one

is able to again become aware of the self the body, ones own feelings

and find some rest and contentment.

While it is true that Yoga and Meditation can be very helpful in the

treatment of alienation and other western and eastern urban stress

diseases, it is not its main intent nor should achieving this result

be confused with the path that leads to moksha or union with Shakti.

Since mental health and contentment is a requirement for sadhana,

therefore healing alienation or stress disease can be a part or

apreliminary of Sadhana.

I do not suggest that on the path to moksha one should increase self

centered habitual actions even more then before by adding an inner

conflict (like negating the self, shutting down etc)., but instead i

am talking about a complete shift of awareness away from all

dichotomizing thoughts and actions.

Yoga is defined in the Bhagavadgita as "Sama" This means through Yoga

one obtains a state of Equality, Sameness, a state where the

mind is content and not moved neither by experiencing pleasure nor

by displeasure. That means the aim of Yoga and Sadhana is to calm

and arrest the activity of all self centered limiting factors of the

Self/Mind and its diverse activities, thereby allowing awareness to

shift focus from a particularised and localized day today

consciousness to a a transpersonal more fluid, less rigid, non

localized awareness.

The Yoga Sutras begin with this definition of Yoga:

1.Now to explain Yoga.

2.Yoga is the cessation (nirodha) of the modes of mind (chitta

vritti).

3.Then consciousness takes on its true nature.

4.At other times consciousness is identified with the modes of mind.

If you are becoming aware of your body its energies and yourself in

Hatha Yoga the reason is not to strengthen identification with a

coherent "myself" nor denying the presence of the parts that

consitute the I, but to become aware that one is habitually

identified with experiencing fleeting changing phenomena and to

disentangle and enter the state of "Sama".

Hatha Yoga is also a dissolving of obstructions and rigidity in the

material body and the subtle bodies, obstructions in the motoric

centers, emotional centers and mind. One is not only dissolving the

obstructions and identification with the chitta vritti, the "waves of

the mindsubstance" but to realise that what we consider a coherent

self is in fact an assemblage of many different parts, we are not

ones elf we are many and in a lot of places, the main "brains" or

selfs being those located in the motoric, emotional, and mental

centers.

That the Body (pinda) is identical with the macrocosm (Brahmanda)

does certainly not mean that the Macrocosm is as small as your

limited self, and can be contained within yourself, but that there

exists a rare oppurtunity to realise that what one considers ones

coherent self is only a time and space limited "concept" created by

restrictions, habits, imprint of past actions etc. by expanding our

awareness to become one with infinity the universe.

Of course we must reach beyond the

finite self, to become aware of the unity of micro and macrocosm,

how else?

The ideas is not that the MICROCOSM is one with the macrocosm, but it

is that the microcosm is one with the MACROCOSM.

The emphasis is not on the limited self but on its greater

Counterpart, the same situation we have in regard to the devis in

the human frame.

Here the realisation is also the other way around, not that the devi

is inside of MYSELF/BODY but the realisation is that it is THE DEVI

(and not the limited Self) that is inside my self/body.

Inviting the devi inside your body is, by reducing your limited self

causing the emerging of the awareness of a transpersonal state of

consciousness in your body.

Both acts expansion the mind infinte into the macrocosm or reduction

of the mind/self by attraction the devi presence into the microcosm

are not meant to increase and strengthen or change your limited self

into something different, it cannot change it is not even existing

you are only imaging it, but it is meant to gradually dissolve the

identification with the limited mind/self and at the same time cause

the latent transpersonal state of consciousness to gradually appear.

There are two primal ways the self appears and is established, that

is by contact with pleasure and pain, and there are two primal ways

the self is dissolved, infinite reduction or infinite expansion ,

corresponding to the twofold possible reaction of the cogniser,

that leaves an imprint on the mind (the sugarcane bow) by the medium

of the senses (the five arrows)these are

contraction/attraction/desire/attachment/pleasure (the noose) and

expansion/repulsion/hatred/aversion/sorrow (the goad)

by interaction of these forces a illusive habitual pattern called

self is generated and reincarnates.

"There is an anecdote about Acharya Sankara which is relevant here.

It is said that Acharya Sankara was in his Kutir, and the door was

bolted from within. One of his disciples came and knocked. "Who is

that?" asked the Master. "I" was the answer. "Oh I! Either reduce it

to zero or expand it to infinity!" retorted the Master from within.

This 'I' in every individual should either be reduced to zero or

expanded to infinity. Either way it is good. In the one method, the

modifications of the mind are restrained by a negative withdrawal of

its operations from everything that appears as external. The other

method involves the philosophical visualisation of the mind's basic

identity with all things."

(swami krishnananda)

To know more about the underlying cognitive theories of indic

religions, including their general "disregard" for the Self, that is

so highly regarded in modern western spiritually, one should start

with a study of Samkhya Philosophy which is not only the foundation

for a correct understanding of Yoga, but also of all other indic

religions including Shakta but also the nastika the non hindu

religions like the Buddha mata are based on the foundation of the

cognitive theory of Samkhya.

Hope that helps.

MahaHradanatha

October 18, 2006

Maha, Man your explanation ROCKS... (Ya kind of saying it loud ha ha ha)

See, I may not understand completely what he is saying, but I will buy it..

for sure..

Maha, Thanks for taking time to explain your point in such a well designed

faishon, so that folks like me (what!!) can understand it.. or at least have

hope of understanding it..

Reagards

Dp

On 10/16/06, mahahradanatha <mahahradanatha > wrote:

>

> , "willendorfer"

> <willendorfer wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mahahradanatha:

> >

> > Your comments last week about Ramprasad and types of samadhi were

> very illuminating to

> > me. I'm still trying to figure out this selflessness business, and

> I value your perspective.

> >

> > At the suggestion of some archived articles from this group, I've

> now begun to explore Hatha

> > Yoga as an addition to my sadhana. One idea that I've gleaned

> from my Yoga readings is

> > learning not to ignore what's going on in my body, as a form of

> ahimsa, which eventually

> > leads me to become more aware of and compassionate towards the

> world around me. I see a

> > similar idea in commentary I've read on the Khadamala Stotram: the

> worshipper internalizes

> > the Devis and Yoginis of the outer enclosures, progressing inward

> towards union with Shakti,

> > the ultimate reality. Moreover, isn't it a basic doctrine of

> Tantra that the body/self is the

> > Cosmos in microcosm? All of these teachings suggest to me that

> spiritual progess (in Shakti

> > worship or otherwise) involves not negating, renouncing,

> conquering, shutting down or

> > otherwise turning my back on my self, but rather becoming more

> aware of myself, ultimately

> > leading to complete awareness of Shakti.

> >

> Dear Robert

> I will try to the best of my ability without being too verbose, this

> subject is vast and hard to explain.

>

> You write "negating, renouncing, conquering, shutting down or

> otherwise turning my back...." Who is doing all these actions you

> describe if not the Limited Self/Mind itself? A sage whose attention

> is not focussed on his self will not negate, renounce, shut down, or

> turn his back on his self because his aim is to calm down all these

> diverse actions that also belong to the limited self.

>

> And again i mus insist that we do not at all need to behave like a

> Saint or even try to imitate his behaviour, nobody is forcing

> anybody in Hinduism to do things that are not appropriate to his

> environment karma or state of mind. Only a very small percentage of

> people strive to achieve the higher aims. There is no common rule

> that all Shaktas have to follow this, nor does anybody imply they

> should strive to reach moksha in this life, and i also am not

> recommending this, i only try to explain that moksha implies

> disssolving the mind/self.

> Contrary to other Religions one and the same aim is not recommended

> for everybody.

> I understand that there are people in the modern urban western and

> eastern society that by their circumstances ofliving become alienated

> from their own body, their feelings, their family and friends and

> that many are therefore not experiencing happiness and contentment

> anymore but suffer.

> Some aspects of Yoga, Meditation and eastern Philosophys and

> Religion can give some relief and counteract these adverse effects

> of modern civilisation.

> In the circumstances some find themnselves in, it means a lot if one

> is able to again become aware of the self the body, ones own feelings

> and find some rest and contentment.

>

> While it is true that Yoga and Meditation can be very helpful in the

> treatment of alienation and other western and eastern urban stress

> diseases, it is not its main intent nor should achieving this result

> be confused with the path that leads to moksha or union with Shakti.

> Since mental health and contentment is a requirement for sadhana,

> therefore healing alienation or stress disease can be a part or

> apreliminary of Sadhana.

>

> I do not suggest that on the path to moksha one should increase self

> centered habitual actions even more then before by adding an inner

> conflict (like negating the self, shutting down etc)., but instead i

> am talking about a complete shift of awareness away from all

> dichotomizing thoughts and actions.

>

> Yoga is defined in the Bhagavadgita as "Sama" This means through Yoga

> one obtains a state of Equality, Sameness, a state where the

> mind is content and not moved neither by experiencing pleasure nor

> by displeasure. That means the aim of Yoga and Sadhana is to calm

> and arrest the activity of all self centered limiting factors of the

> Self/Mind and its diverse activities, thereby allowing awareness to

> shift focus from a particularised and localized day today

> consciousness to a a transpersonal more fluid, less rigid, non

> localized awareness.

>

> The Yoga Sutras begin with this definition of Yoga:

> 1.Now to explain Yoga.

> 2.Yoga is the cessation (nirodha) of the modes of mind (chitta

> vritti).

> 3.Then consciousness takes on its true nature.

> 4.At other times consciousness is identified with the modes of mind.

>

> If you are becoming aware of your body its energies and yourself in

> Hatha Yoga the reason is not to strengthen identification with a

> coherent "myself" nor denying the presence of the parts that

> consitute the I, but to become aware that one is habitually

> identified with experiencing fleeting changing phenomena and to

> disentangle and enter the state of "Sama".

>

> Hatha Yoga is also a dissolving of obstructions and rigidity in the

> material body and the subtle bodies, obstructions in the motoric

> centers, emotional centers and mind. One is not only dissolving the

> obstructions and identification with the chitta vritti, the "waves of

> the mindsubstance" but to realise that what we consider a coherent

> self is in fact an assemblage of many different parts, we are not

> ones elf we are many and in a lot of places, the main "brains" or

> selfs being those located in the motoric, emotional, and mental

> centers.

>

> That the Body (pinda) is identical with the macrocosm (Brahmanda)

> does certainly not mean that the Macrocosm is as small as your

> limited self, and can be contained within yourself, but that there

> exists a rare oppurtunity to realise that what one considers ones

> coherent self is only a time and space limited "concept" created by

> restrictions, habits, imprint of past actions etc. by expanding our

> awareness to become one with infinity the universe.

> Of course we must reach beyond the

> finite self, to become aware of the unity of micro and macrocosm,

> how else?

>

> The ideas is not that the MICROCOSM is one with the macrocosm, but it

> is that the microcosm is one with the MACROCOSM.

>

> The emphasis is not on the limited self but on its greater

> Counterpart, the same situation we have in regard to the devis in

> the human frame.

> Here the realisation is also the other way around, not that the devi

> is inside of MYSELF/BODY but the realisation is that it is THE DEVI

> (and not the limited Self) that is inside my self/body.

>

> Inviting the devi inside your body is, by reducing your limited self

> causing the emerging of the awareness of a transpersonal state of

> consciousness in your body.

>

> Both acts expansion the mind infinte into the macrocosm or reduction

> of the mind/self by attraction the devi presence into the microcosm

> are not meant to increase and strengthen or change your limited self

> into something different, it cannot change it is not even existing

> you are only imaging it, but it is meant to gradually dissolve the

> identification with the limited mind/self and at the same time cause

> the latent transpersonal state of consciousness to gradually appear.

>

> There are two primal ways the self appears and is established, that

> is by contact with pleasure and pain, and there are two primal ways

> the self is dissolved, infinite reduction or infinite expansion ,

> corresponding to the twofold possible reaction of the cogniser,

> that leaves an imprint on the mind (the sugarcane bow) by the medium

> of the senses (the five arrows)these are

> contraction/attraction/desire/attachment/pleasure (the noose) and

> expansion/repulsion/hatred/aversion/sorrow (the goad)

> by interaction of these forces a illusive habitual pattern called

> self is generated and reincarnates.

>

> "There is an anecdote about Acharya Sankara which is relevant here.

> It is said that Acharya Sankara was in his Kutir, and the door was

> bolted from within. One of his disciples came and knocked. "Who is

> that?" asked the Master. "I" was the answer. "Oh I! Either reduce it

> to zero or expand it to infinity!" retorted the Master from within.

> This 'I' in every individual should either be reduced to zero or

> expanded to infinity. Either way it is good. In the one method, the

> modifications of the mind are restrained by a negative withdrawal of

> its operations from everything that appears as external. The other

> method involves the philosophical visualisation of the mind's basic

> identity with all things."

> (swami krishnananda)

>

> To know more about the underlying cognitive theories of indic

> religions, including their general "disregard" for the Self, that is

> so highly regarded in modern western spiritually, one should start

> with a study of Samkhya Philosophy which is not only the foundation

> for a correct understanding of Yoga, but also of all other indic

> religions including Shakta but also the nastika the non hindu

> religions like the Buddha mata are based on the foundation of the

> cognitive theory of Samkhya.

>

> Hope that helps.

> MahaHradanatha

>

October 18, 2006

> To know more about the underlying cognitive theories of indic

> religions, including their general "disregard" for the Self, that is

> so highly regarded in modern western spiritually, one should start

> with a study of Samkhya Philosophy

OK, I'll bite. Can you recommend any books?

And I'm afraid to ask this ... but who is this "one" who's going to study Samkhya philosophy?

;-)

October 18, 2006

Worship of Maha shakti is developing an incredible openess...............you dont shut the world out or run from it..............but openly let it flow over you totally welcoming it...............welcoming totality...........

within conditioning dropping all conditioning...............

Being so vulnerable...............that every step hurts............and then you are purified into untarnished flame...........that envelops everything.......

It is a very tough path..................but so beautiful.....................

Tarini

Dhirendra Pal Singh <dpal.singh > wrote: Maha, Man your explanation ROCKS... (Ya kind of saying it loud ha ha ha)