Re: Beam me up
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jeff Belyea" <jeff@...> wrote:
> Yo Bob -
> Thanks. I expected it
> to light up Jody and
> Bruce. Nice to see you
> in the light, too. Can't
> wait to read what the
> gurupies have to say.
Heh. I knew you were expecting me to jump all up in your
bidness, so I didn't.
But since you mention it:
> When in the course of
> meditation, an "event"
> occurs that is received
> as an infusion of light,
> with an accompanying rush
> of sudden new wisdom - and
> an entirely new perspective
> on life and our role in it,
> that can be call "Enlightenment".
Not in my universe. That's an inspiring spiritual experience,
but it's not self-realization as I know it and as it is described
in the Upanishads.
- " 30.The ailments, inactiveness, doubt, negligence,
philosophy, absence of proper grounding and instability or
are mental disturbances and these are hindrances too.
31.Sorrow,disappointment, trembling of body and irregular inhalation
exhalation are accompaniments of mental disturbances"
Here are 9=4=13 hindrances. Can any body bypass them? If not,
he/she will have to encounter body chemistry and neuroplasticity.
--- In email@example.com, Bruce Morgen
> jogeshwarmahanta wrote:
> >So, so far it emerges that light/enlightenment is figurative.
> Any possible demurral from
> the somewhat more literal-
> minded Jeffji, that is
> indeed what has emerged.
> Thanks to Durgaji for her
> informed contribution.
> >2. But at any particular time, the brain of an average person
> >generates about 10 wat electricity which is just sufficient to
> >a bulb. However, the consumption is diffused. If its use becomesmore
> >undiffused and concentrated, capability of a person goes up.
> Now we enter the
> domain of physical brain
> function and immediately
> one senses something
> akin to the dreaded
> "mixing levels" -- isn't
> that evident? Moreover,
> is this correlation of
> concentration of such
> energy (assuming one can
> deliberately create that
> condition) and personal
> capability factual or
> perhaps one of those
> notions often presented
> on behalf of various
> yogas and meditation
> >3.Next, it can be surmised that with practice one may generate
> >than 10 wat electricity.
> What is the relevance of
> personally generated
> energy, electrical or
> otherwise? Isn't there
> ample electrical energy
> is a summer storm's
> lightning and sufficient
> illumination from the
> sun's disc, the blue glow
> of atmospheric refraction,
> and the silver beacon of
> light reflected by the
> moon? It seems that to
> compete with aweseom
> natural phenomena in this
> manner is akinto footracing
> a gazelle or outpulling an
> elephant! Wouldn't it be
> wiser to instead work with
> what is so generously given
> to human incarnates to the
> apparent exclusion of other
> Meditation, it is submitted,
> may indeed result in the
> redirection or concentration
> of bodily energies, but
> aren't such effects rather
> peripheral to its primary
> role in inner, "figurative"
> illumination? Are we to
> engage in the cultivation of
> siddhis or are our practices
> best oriented toward the
> falling away of darkening
> veils of ignorance, albeit
> finally and actually via
> divine grace?
> >Any further idea?
> Ah, the mighty *idea* --
> neither lightning strike nor
> noonday sun, nor fleeing
> gazelle, nor lumbering
> elephant can match we
> furless meat puppets at
> producing that sort of
> energy, eh? :-)
> Right back atcha!
> Much love -- Bruce
> >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Durga"
> ><durgaji@> wrote:
> >>>>>From Upanishads:
> >>>>"The Supreme Reality (Brahman)
> >>>>...takes on the attributes
> >>>>(upadhi) of ability to illuminate."
> >>>An analogy. The Indian
> >>>tradition often refers to
> >>>"illumined teachers," but
> >>>afaik none of 'em actually
> >>>glow. Just as darkness is
> >>>analogous to ignorance,
> >>>light refers to the absence
> >>>of ignorance. This doesn't
> >>>mean there's a literal
> >>>experience of light in the
> >>>moment of realization imo.
> >>Yes, darkness is often used to
> >>refer to ignorance.
> >>I wonder what Upanishad that
> >>quote is from, chapter and verse.
> >>It doesn't sound like a correct
> >>translation at all to me.
> >>'Upadhi' is a Sanskrit word, and it
> >>means that which can be confused
> >>with, can be mistaken for, or 'appears' to
> >>condition Brahman, aka the Self, (which of
> >>course nothing can actually do).
> >>Thus the upadhi of the individual is the
> >>body/mind/sense organs, which the individual
> >>mind takes the Self or Brahman to be a product
> >>of. Thus my mind mistakes 'I,' (who am actually
> >>Brahman), to be the body/mind/sense organs person.
> >>And one task in teaching is to point out that
> >>these two 'experiences,' Brahman, the Self, which
> >>is constant and unchanging, and the upadhi,
> >>of the individual, i.e. the body/mind/sense organs
> >>complex which is always changing, are different.
> >>And this can be observed, because 'I' alway am, while
> >>everything else the mind had taken 'I' to be
> >>The Self or Brahman is often referred
> >>to as that which illumines or 'lights up'
> >>all changing experience.
> >>But what does that mean? It means
> >>that Brahman is that by which all experience
> >>is known, or that which exists prior to all
> >>experience, or that which 'informs' all experience,
> >>is substrate to the experience, or without
> >>which no experience is, or that in which
> >>experience takes place.
> >>All thoughts come and go in me (Brahman).
> >>There is a quote which goes:
> >>'Knowing That (Brahman) by
> >>which all else is known'
> >>Some of those phrases above may seem far
> >>from the phrase 'that which illumines,'
> >>but these are in fact the phrases which
> >>the Upanishads use interchangebly as
> >>illustrations of the word 'illumines'