Pilgrim

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,501

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Pilgrim

  1. Posted · Edited by Pilgrim

    @Pilgrim, Thank you for your post. From my perspective, mantras. dharanis and pirits must be chanted with purity of heart, sincerity, focus of thought (or intent) plus a moral foundation that comes with commitment to the practice of the Faith. With this, even the Lord's Prayer can be a dharani, not necessarily the verse(s) must be from a particular religion. Whether the mantra is effective or not, depends upon the degree of moral cultivation of the one chanting it and not just the power of thought or mind.

     

    While I respect your perspective it simply is not correct outside of your tradition. Mantra transcends all traditions.

     

    From your perspective it may remain true for yourself within the system of your tradition and there can be no discussion on that because any attempt to do so would be violating the system of belief you cherish and that is not nice to do to someone.

     

    Therefore my reply is not in specific regard to demonstrating how you are incorrect within that which works for you.

     

    This reply is for those who may may stumble across this thread and be detoured by the subset of preconditions set forth in your reply, for whom it is not a good fit and discourage the use of the tool of Mantra..

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

     

    Morality is highly subjective within a given tradition or cultural reference, or religion.  Mantra does not require a moral precept to work.

     

    Mantra does not even require any other supporting framework other than it must be blended with Prana. One must, MUST    learn how to integrate their mind with their Chi / Prana. This is universal regardless of tradition or sentiment.

     

    Mantra requires no subjective idea or emotional context of morality to operate effectively, although it can help for a while.

     

    Mantra does not require purity of heart. If anything it is a tool which will help one develop a more pure heart.

     

    Mantra does not require a practice based on faith or a commitment of any kind. Mantra typically comes as a packaged deal with a religion or a tradition of sadhana of some kind.

     

    Mantra does not require sincerity. By the very act of making mantra the sincerity is in place already.

     

    Mantra does require focus.

     

    Everything listed above with the exception of focus is in the category of devotion and strong sentiment or Bhakti which has been used as strong emotional fuel as a source of getting ones ass on the cushion since the beginning of contrived practices.

     

    This Bhakti or strong sentiment, even with sincerity can only go so far.

     

    Mantra is independent of these things and goes places allows one to enter realms where these things of emotional feeling and sentiment simply do not exist. Where mind itself does not exist, where the witness itself does not exist.

     

    If these things of feeling are not let go of then they will tether mantra and mind will not be able to relax its grasp on sentiment nor go beyond which is the point of mantra.

     

    The purpose of mantra in the beginning is for global purification of the subtle channels and is to enter the central channel.

     

    Entering the central channel is necessary to enter Samadhi.

     

    Mantra is universal.

     

    Prana is universal but takes on different names in different cultures in different times.

     

    When the two universal principals are applied with focus all boundaries of emotion, sentiment and mind are transcended. If not in the beginning then later.

     

    One must, MUST    learn how to integrate their mind / Mantra with their Chi / Prana. This is universal regardless of tradition or sentiment.

     

    If one will learn how to integrate within their tradition then they will have it all and satisfy all conditions.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    The more good things in live we have,the easier life is. But the easier our life is the smaller intent to become stronger, more smart etc. we have.

    Why do I need to calculate numbers? There is a calculator for it.

    Why do I have to remember my plans? There is an electronic adviser with reminder system.

    Why do I need to grow plants for food? There is a shop, mechanic machine etc.

    We lose smth with every step in technical progress ad it will last on and on untill we become absolutely dependent upon machines, mechanisms and comfort conditions.

    Too late already.....

  4. Posted

    D: “Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables (mantras) picked up casually?

     

    M.: “No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.” Ramana Maharshi illustrated this by the following story: A King visited his Premier in his residence. There he was told that the Premier was engaged in repetition of sacred syllables. The King waited for him and, on meeting him, asked what the words were. The Premier said that it was the holiest of all, Gayatri. The King desired to be initiated by the Premier. But the Premier confessed his inability to initiate him. Therefore the King learned it from someone else, and meeting the Minister later he repeated the Gayatri and wanted to know if it was right. The Minister said that the mantra was correct, but it was not proper for him to say it. When pressed for an explanation, the Minister called to a page close by and ordered him to take hold of the King. The order was not obeyed. The order was often repeated, and still not obeyed. The King flew into a rage and ordered the same man to hold the Minister, and it was immediately done. The Minister laughed and said that the incident was the explanation required by the King. “How?” asked the King. The Minister replied, “The order was the same and the executor also, but the authority was different. When I ordered, the effect was nil, whereas, when you ordered, there was immediate effect. Similarly with mantras.”

     

    http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/teachings/%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%93/

    Hi Bindi I have read this story before and always enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing it.

     

    The story applies here but it does not explain why.

     

    If I tell a person chant OM mentally even sing OM for them to the best of my ability so they get the tonality and pronunciation correct. They will only learn the mantra.

     

    If by the knowing of having discovered by doing how to make mantra effective I work with a person and discover the key to their comprehension then they will understand also how to make Mantra Effective.

     

    Mantra is a science pure and simple, it works because it works and no agency or presumed authority is required to activate some mystical charm.

     

    You can practice mantra or Japa forever and get very little result, this is true but it is not because some mystical authority is required to grant you permission or so order that it be done.

     

    Just the verbal or mental repetition of Mantra is not enough.

     

    One must, MUST    learn how to integrate their mind with their Chi / Prana 

     

    One can discover how to do this on their own simply by doing practice. This is an uncertain way though and it is not likely many will.

     

    One may be taught specific technologies or techniques of practice where this will come to them.

     

    One may be fortunate enough to have a friend that is willing to spend time with them to help them unlock this within themselves.

    • Like 3

  7. Posted

    Quoted from the original dialog quoted by Dwai above from Papaji:

     

    "Spontaneous, without involvement in the thought process.

    No thought process will be there--only direct sponta¬neous activity without thinking.

    First I think and then I act.

    This process will be gone and direct activity will be there according to circumstances.

    In this process even the memory won't be there either.

    You don't need memory.

    Memory is ego itself."

     

    This is the hairy stuff  - this is in the fringes - it is the pith in this - hard to hear and see and immediately skipped over - but it is the diamond - the other stuff is something we think we understand - and this looks like a misprint but it is not -it is literal. This is what an Awakened teacher says - this is what is not heard.

    This is the wisdom of a frogs cut off leg responding to electrodes.

    • Haha 1

  9. Posted

    also for a renunciate to deny or belittle house-holder dharma is as foolish as a house-holder to deny or belittle renunciate dharma

    Depends, on if the renunciantes are true sheep or wolves in sheeps clothing bleating Kriyaaaa, Kriyaaa!!!!!

  10. Posted

    The body is insentient and cannot say ‘I’. The Self is pure consciousness and non-dual. It cannot say ‘I’. No one says ‘I’ in sleep. What is the ego then? It is something intermediate between the inert body and the Self. If sought for it vanishes like a ghost. You see, a man imagines that there is something by his side in darkness; it may be some dark object. If he looks closely the ghost is not to be seen, but some dark object which he could identify as a tree or a post, etc. If he does not look closely the ghost strikes terror in a person. All that is required is only to look closely and the ghost vanishes. The ghost was never there. So also with ego. It is an intangible link between the body and Pure Consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found to not exist. 

    Ramana Maharshi

    Good job Bindi

    • Like 1

  13. Posted · Edited by Pilgrim

    Yes, you and I have much in common there, I also practised Kriya Yoga. But I found my Guru to be so pompous and out and out racist (against the British) that I ended up seriously doubting his authority to pass on this tradition with integrity, but he certainly loved the adulation from all the Indian devotees! I am fascinated by the way Gautama seems to have rejected certain key aspects of Vedanta yet incorporated so much of the terminology and hierarchical groups from the different realms - even Brahma. But what is most revealing is that God is never mentioned, in the Vedic sense of the Absolute Parabrahman or whatever. Even the mantras and dharanis are in many ways similar, and there can be no doubt of Gautama having previously been a devotee before leaving his father's kingdom. So we need to ask ourselves how it was that none of the traditions whose practices he perfected led him to the goal he sought? For example reading the writings of Yogananda, Kriya Kundalini Yoga could be easily seen as leading to paranirvana, yet obviously this was not the case for Gautama. So was his practice at fault? Or was the practice as he said only capable of leading to partial enlightenment? There is little mention of the level of attainment which Gautama had already reached through his years of ascetic practice in the company of the Jain ascetics who were eventually to become his first disciples, but I would conjecture that he had already reached an extraordinary level of cultivation in order to continue to survive through that gruelling practice. 

    Lol not so surprising concerning Kriya Gurus. They do not have a good track record.

     

    A big part of the problem with Kriya as it has become known in the world is Yukteswar and all that followed him including Yogananda. There are huge problems with both of these historical figures that have been blown up to mythological proportions.

     

    Reading the writings of Yogananda is not a good idea, better off reading a comic book. Anything written by Yogananda has been heavily influenced and edited by others.

     

    Kriya is a householder practice not a practice for monastics. Lahiri Mahasaya forbid his students from becoming Monastics, He forbid the creation of groups around Kriya. Lahiri Mahasaya even went so far as to tell his chief apprentice to get rid of his whiskers and orange robe, cut his hair and marry becoming a householder and to raise a family before he would accept him.

     

    The monastics are the ones responsible for the world knowing about Kriya, they took it upon themselves to change the way it is practiced and have been on a selling spree for around 100 Years now. Some of the Ashrams built from the proceeds are truly beautiful.

     

    That people find it ineffective is a small wonder. Actual Kriya despite all the advertisement really is not a good fit for everyone.

     

    Even within the descendants of the Lahiri family there are issues such as certain descendants that were Krishnamurti followers and only use Kriya as an avenue for profit and bitch bitterly about not enough people coming to see them and how wonderful Russia is because so many come and give so much money that they have to file taxes in India.

     

    Thankfully there are other sources that held the practice as it was handed down.

     

    Does anyone even know what Gautama's practices were? I can assure you they were not Kriya as true Kriya was formulated (not modified) for the householders by Lahiri Mahasaya who came well after Gautama.

     

    Concerning Gautama and his lack of reference to God etc... it appears to me he was more of a practical sort that was more concerned with what could be done in the here and now rather than spinning off into realms or relatively little value to discuss due to the very nature of the topics.

     

     

    Concerning Gautama's practices I have always found it a clever argument that he found practices unnecessary in the end and developed his system instead.

     

    The whole thing falls apart here.

     

    Once you take up the practices you are no longer objective, you are no longer at the starting point of one who never has. The one who started out is changed by the practices so the one making the declaration is not the same as when they started views and opinions most certainly have been altered.

     

    Practices are tools. That is all.

     

    They are necessary.

     

    They do have there place.

     

    Does one confuse the tools with the completed house?

     

    When the house is built the tools are not needed a bulldozer serves no purpose.

     

    Before the house is built saying the bulldozer is not needed will not clear the land.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    Mantra Is a great technology / tool.

     

    This is a Buddhist discussion section so I have remained silent. If it is wished come join me over at the Hindu Discussion and I will describe in the Kriya yoga section how and why Mantra is used it may or may not prove interesting.

     

    http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43045-kriya-yoga/page-7

     

    In the meantime I am educating myself concerning Buddhism because there is so much that parallels and so much that does not and there is much wisdom and reflection of what is known.

  15. Posted

    HI,

     

    I will come back to this right now receiving education on what Buddha and Buddhism is all about it is quite different than Vedic traditions and there are some very interesting facets that I happen to agree with as they are simply true such as Samsara.

     

     

    The best definition of samsara I've seen so far is from the Theravada monk and teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu:  "Instead of a place, it's a process: the tendency to keep creating worlds and then moving into them." And note that this creating and moving in doesn't just happen once, at birth. We're doing it all the time. 

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

  18. Posted

    Yeah the Buddha was called Siddhartha Gautama. He practiced (shamatha - concentration) meditation until he mastered advanced states of mind, the jhanas. He didn't become awakened, so then he tried harsh austerities instead. After giving up that (deciding on a 'middle way'), he combined concentration meditation with a new approach, vipassana (insight) meditation. Insight meditation showed him the four noble truths, and concentration meditation made his mind sharp enough to do that.

     

     

     

    I think you mean 'four noble truths', the last of which is the eightfold path. The Buddha did not create these, they are intrinsic to the way experience works - he discovered them. He wasn't necessarily the first being anywhere ever to discover them, nor did he claim to be.

     

    'Buddhism' wouldn't exist without the Buddha, but that which it describes (Dharma) would still be true. Someone else could've found the exact same things, and used different terminology and expressed themselves differently.

     

    Thank you for clearing up many misunderstandings. What is insight meditation? How is it performed?

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    Ah yes as pointed out in another thread the Siddhartha in the book met Gautama. Sorry it has been close to 30 years since I read the book. Wow 30 Years talk about something sticking with you! Great book!

     

    But was not Gautama's original name Siddhartha? Did he not follow a similar route before his awakening? Did he not do great Sadhana, practicing harsh austerities which led him to the knowledge of the middle way?

     

    I always thought the founder of the 8 noble truths was the first Buddha as with out his 8 noble truths there would not exist Buddhism.

     

    Perhaps I am confused would someone please clear this up?

     

    Thanks.

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    Hello,

     

    This is a good thread but it would be helpful to me and I am certain others also if there was a better idea of what each is in the first place.

     

    At another thread http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43199-gateway-to-limitless-being/page-7 

     

    I asked the following but this seems a better place for the question.

     

     

    What is a Buddha?

     

     

    Jeff Replied But, to your Buddha question... A buddha is one who has fully realized "emptiness". In later buddhist traditions, they introduced the "vow" to help sentient beings realize as part of the highest realization.  Such a buddha it classic descriptions has three kayas (bodies at different layers of reality - the carved block in TTC 28) to help out and teach at the various levels of "reality".
     

     

    I asked: Was Siddhartha from the book by Hermann Hesse the first Buddha?
     
    It is a work of fiction but it sure did a good job of explaining the process of becoming a Buddha or so it seemed anyway. Have you read the book? Is that what a Buddha is?
     

    • Like 1