regarding science

[Guest guest]

Lili Masamura wrote:

> The notion that preserving life is all-good and

>taking it is all-bad is ridiculous...what about

>killing germs that cause disease?

>

 

That is ofcourse OK, it is the motive behind killing that is important.

> What about keeping

>fatally ill people alive on machines?

>

 

Same there.

> The notion that

>death is to be avoided and denied at all costs is part

>of the foolishness of our society, that fears old age

>and death,

>

 

I agree and I am sure A Schweitzer also had agreed.

>The only thing that is unethical

>about the Bhagavad-Gita is the interpolations about

>"Brahmins", probably put there so the caste could

>justify demanding gifts from people. It is clear that

>A. Schweitzer did not understand the Hindu culture at

>all.

>

 

He understood it clearly, thats for sure.

 

>War was not the all-out destruction then that it

>is now..it was confined to battlefields and was

>conducted by warriors. Civilians were not involved. It

>was considered glorious and fitting for a warrior to

>die in battle, rather than "of old age and strange

>diseases" as the great warrior Karna put it. Trying to

>impose modern-day "ethics" on past history is ignorant

>and absurd.

>

Right, thats why we will be better off if we organize a modern ethics of

today instead of living acording to etichs of past history.

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

> Not every one follows the same path to enlightenment. Some

> follow the Raja Yoga path of asana, pranayama, meditation.

> Others follow the Karma Yoga path of selfless service. Some

> follow the intellectual path of Jnana Yoga. And some follow the

> Bhakti Yoga path of adoration, seeing the Divine in everyone

and

> everything.

 

lars replied

:

But at a certain point, there will be a conflict between spending a

lot

of time doing yoga and parttake in service for other humans - no

matter

what kind of yoga you do. This is nothing new. A lot of yogis has

given

up their spiritual work for helping others. Ofcourse, helping

others

can alsoo be considered as yoga.

 

Something we should ask us is: why do we want to do yoga?

 

 

Either I don't understand your response or you didn't understand

my comment. There is never a conflict between doing physical

yoga and giving service to others. Hatha Yoga and pranayama

make up only 2 of 8 aspects of Raja Yoga. The first aspect of

Raja Yoga are the Yamas - non-violence, non-stealing,

truthfulness, greedlessness, non-possessiveness and

celebacy. Another aspect are the Niyamas -cleanliness,

,contentment, austerty, study of scripture, and worship of the

Lord. The other aspects of Raja Yoga involve meditation. All

them together make one a better person, more inclined to help

others and less inclined to harm others. Where's the conflict?

 

Also, I explicitly mentioned Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga as

methods of seeking spiritual realization through selfless service

ot others and seeing the Divine everywhere respectively. These

two are actively directed toward helping others.

 

I think that you are confusing all forms of yoga with hatha yoga,

the physical stuff. Yoga roughly means union or yoking. We strive

to see the Divine in our selves, those with whom we come in

contact with and our environment and to identify with that Divinity.

 

Omprem

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> > Not every one follows the same path to enlightenment. Some

> > follow the Raja Yoga path of asana, pranayama, meditation.

> > Others follow the Karma Yoga path of selfless service. Some

> > follow the intellectual path of Jnana Yoga. And some follow

the

> > Bhakti Yoga path of adoration, seeing the Divine in everyone

and

> > everything.

> >

>

> But at a certain point, there will be a conflict between spending

a lot

> of time doing yoga and parttake in service for other humans -

no matter

> what kind of yoga you do. This is nothing new. A lot of yogis

has given

> up their spiritual work for helping others. Ofcourse, helping

others

> can alsoo be considered as yoga.

>

> Something we should ask us is: why do we want to do yoga?

>

>

> > One of dangers that I see every day in those who seek to

help

> > their fellow man and animals is the tendency to impose their

> > viewpoint on the world and the willingness to take whatever

> > means they deem necessary to achieve their goals. Abortion

> > doctors are murdered. Scientists who use animals have

their

> > lives threatened and those of their families. Dissent is

quashed.

>

>

> If yoga has something to do with wisdom and awareness, the

risk of

> helping others in a destructive way shouldn't be so big for a

sadhaka.

>

> Furthermore, the people you are referring to show passion.

>

> "By passion the world is bound, by passion too it is released".

>

> Hevajira Tantra

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

[Guest guest]

Schwiezer didmn't earn his Nobel Prize for his knowlege of

Hinduism, the Baghvad Gita or for his contribution to the

philosophy of ethics.

 

He like Jung carried a Christian bias with him that lead him to

postualate such definitions as the one you mention. His

definition may well be Christian but it is not Hindu.

 

Even in the definition you cite, he omitted any consideration of

whether it is ehtically or spiriitually desireable to be attached to

life as opposed to optimizing it or avoiding damaging or

destroying it. This is an important distinction, because it is one's

duty to maintain their physical and mental health so that they are

not distracted from their spiiritual journey by disease and

infirmity. But they can be objective about the utility of life and its

value relative to knowing to God. If you are implying that it is good

to value life over all else then that is a false assumption. There

are many examples of when it would ethical to give up one's life

in favour of a greater good. This tells us clearly that life itself is

not sacrosanct only useful.

 

Omprem

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

>

> >

> > Also, from the library, copy of Baghavad Gita, and a book on

Hinduism

> > by a

> > woman with a Hindu sounding name. And a few others. So!

;-) That

> > should

> > keep me busy for a Little While...

>

>

> The nobelprizewinner Albert Schweizer meant in his book

Indian thought

> and its development that Baghad Gita was unethic in some

ways - and I

> agree with him.

>

> We mustn't swallow everything that comes from east as true.

>

> "Let me give you one definition of ethics: It is good to maintain

life

> and to further life; it is bad to damage and destroy Life. And this

> ethic, profound, universal, has the significance of a religion. It

is

> religion."

>

> Albert Schweitzer

>

> Lars

>

>

>

> ..

[Guest guest]

Amazingly enough, I agree with you entirely - well 99.5 %

 

Omprem

 

 

, Lili Masamura

<sephirah5> wrote:

> The notion that preserving life is all-good and

> taking it is all-bad is ridiculous...what about

> killing germs that cause disease? What about keeping

> fatally ill people alive on machines? The notion that

> death is to be avoided and denied at all costs is part

> of the foolishness of our society, that fears old age

> and death, and tries to dodge it in all sorts of

> nonsensical manners like plastic surgery, yet does not

> quail to inflict it on people who are not of this

> society, nor hesitate to revel in its images in

> virtual reality. The only thing that is unethical

> about the Bhagavad-Gita is the interpolations about

> "Brahmins", probably put there so the caste could

> justify demanding gifts from people. It is clear that

> A. Schweitzer did not understand the Hindu culture at

> all. War was not the all-out destruction then that it

> is now..it was confined to battlefields and was

> conducted by warriors. Civilians were not involved. It

> was considered glorious and fitting for a warrior to

> die in battle, rather than "of old age and strange

> diseases" as the great warrior Karna put it. Trying to

> impose modern-day "ethics" on past history is ignorant

> and absurd. The reason we have what we have today is

> based on the development of what went on back then.

> And anyway, I am sure that those "back then" would

> consider us all a load of dishonourable hypocrites

> anyway..loudly preaching peace and brotherhood on one

> hand, while conducting brutal wars of greed on the

> other, and they would be right, too.

> Lilith M.

> --- Lars Hedström <lars@2...> wrote:

>

> >

> > SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Also, from the library, copy of Baghavad Gita, and

> > a book on Hinduism

> > > by a

> > > woman with a Hindu sounding name. And a few

> > others. So! ;-) That

> > > should

> > > keep me busy for a Little While...

> >

> >

> > The nobelprizewinner Albert Schweizer meant in his

> > book Indian thought

> > and its development that Baghad Gita was unethic in

> > some ways - and I

> > agree with him.

> >

> > We mustn't swallow everything that comes from east

> > as true.

> >

> > "Let me give you one definition of ethics: It is

> > good to maintain life

> > and to further life; it is bad to damage and destroy

> > Life. And this

> > ethic, profound, universal, has the significance of

> > a religion. It is

> > religion."

> >

> > Albert Schweitzer

> >

> > Lars

> >

> >

> >

> > ..

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection

around

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/17/2004 12:21:19 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

omprem writes:

> But they can be objective about the utility of life and its

> value relative to knowing to God. If you are implying that it is good

> to value life over all else then that is a false assumption.

 

I've also heard it said, and believe it to be true, that when one loses the

fear of death, and comes to grips with one's own mortality, at that point,

one is free to truly begin to live...

 

Otherwise we go through life, like prisoners, hedging our bets against the

fear of our own mortality, against the fear of death.

 

Not that one becomes desirous of death, but that one comes to grip with the

inevitibility of death, and loses the fear of it.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

> Lord. The other aspects of Raja Yoga involve meditation. All

> them together make one a better person, more inclined to help

> others and less inclined to harm others. Where's the conflict?

>

 

The conflict shows up when you have come so far that you feel inside

that sitting several hours in your flat doing yoga is not so good while

there is an ocean of tasks right outside your window.

 

Then you must choose where you want to invest your time.

 

If yoga has something to do with getting one with everything this

conflict must show up sooner or later.

 

I am talking about own experience. But ofcourse, we have all different

experiences of yoga.

 

Anyhow, Sivananda writes in his book Kundalini Yoga:

 

"Even Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not necessary. Why do you want to get

yourself merged in the Absolute? Have a small veil of individuality and

serve here as Nityasiddhas. Possess divine qualities and move as a

divine being on this earth."

 

Isn't here a conflict?

 

"Selfless service is the highest thing on this earth. Service will make

you divine. Service is divine life. Service is eternal life in God.

Service will give you Cosmic Consciousness—Service that is selfless,

without attachment. But nobody wants to serve! Everybody wants to be

served by others. You will have to kill the ego."

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

> Schwiezer didmn't earn his Nobel Prize for his knowlege of

> Hinduism, the Baghvad Gita or for his contribution to the

> philosophy of ethics.

>

> He like Jung carried a Christian bias with him that lead him to

> postualate such definitions as the one you mention. His

> definition may well be Christian but it is not Hindu.

>

 

Who says that the hindu worldpicture is better?

 

I will never adopt an attitude of life-denying, I love life and consider

it enjoyable and nothing I want to leave or reject.

 

This does not make me a christian, I construct my own worldpicture.

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

Hi Lars:

 

I've not read back thru this entire thread, so this observation may

be off base ... but if you are saying that meditation is a navel-

gazing waste of time better spent on some kind of outward-directed

service in the name of the divine, I think you have the wrong idea.

 

It's not that I have a problem with service; quite the contrary. If

your sadhana isn't helping anyone but yourself, it's just a closed

circuit of little spiritual consequence. But you've got to fuel up.

>From my viewpoint, to say "Stop meditating, and go help the

unfortunate!" is like saying to a worker, "Stop sleeping! There's 24

hours in a day, and you're wasting 6-8 of them laying on your back!"

 

The thing is, if one stops sleeping, one's work quickly suffers.

Those 6-8 hours on one's back makes the other 16-18 hours more

effective -- in fact, it makes them possible.

 

In sadhana -- be it meditation, japa, pooja, or what have you -- we

expand beyond our limited selves and merge upward into Devi (or

whatever your conception of the Divine may be). In doing so, we

vastly expand our energy level, mental and physical resources,

concept and focus, etc., etc.

 

Thus instead of merely logging the maximum possible "service" hours,

we enable ourselves to broaden our view of what must be done, how it

can be done, and we accomplish it and move on to new tasks. We are

merely Devi's eyes and ears and hands and arms. By becoming Her, we

become tools through which She can do more of what must be done. We

should all strive to become such tools.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

 

 

, Lars Hedström <lars@2...>

wrote:

>

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> > Lord. The other aspects of Raja Yoga involve meditation. All

> > them together make one a better person, more inclined to help

> > others and less inclined to harm others. Where's the conflict?

> >

>

> The conflict shows up when you have come so far that you feel

inside

> that sitting several hours in your flat doing yoga is not so good

while

> there is an ocean of tasks right outside your window.

[Guest guest]

I think you made a great analogy there DB. There are some people who work

so hard at doing righteous action that they hurt their selves in the

process, which I do not think is really healthy. Do I consider myself a

relatively spiritual person? I would be lying if I said, "No." However,

while showing respect, etiquette, and doing good things here and there, I

cannot spend night and day doing it all the time. How can I go out of my

way to help others when I have not spent time helping myself? Selflessness

is not a bad idea at all, do not get me wrong, but preventing one's own

aspiration in life can be taken to extremes, as well (hence I am spending a

lot of time fixing my mental illnesses and problems so that they do not

become a problem in eight years from now when I get that PhD, Lol).

 

On top of that, I need the meditation, praying and mantra recitation (among

other religious practices) to not only develop spiritually, but to have a

sense of grounding and to relieve my body from the stress placed upon it by

the world - I cannot reap the best harvest without being in the best

condition as I can be...if that makes any sense.

 

I am just giving my little opinions here. Even those who have reached the

level of Self-Actualization on Maslow's Pyramid probably get a bit of rest

here and there -- I sure know that the Dalai Lama meditates on his own time!

(I think that even he promotes meditation, but I am not sure.)

 

Blessings,

>"Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta

>

>

> Re: regarding science

>Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:31:13 -0000

>

>

>Hi Lars:

>

>I've not read back thru this entire thread, so this observation may

>be off base ... but if you are saying that meditation is a navel-

>gazing waste of time better spent on some kind of outward-directed

>service in the name of the divine, I think you have the wrong idea.

>

>It's not that I have a problem with service; quite the contrary. If

>your sadhana isn't helping anyone but yourself, it's just a closed

>circuit of little spiritual consequence. But you've got to fuel up.

>From my viewpoint, to say "Stop meditating, and go help the

>unfortunate!" is like saying to a worker, "Stop sleeping! There's 24

>hours in a day, and you're wasting 6-8 of them laying on your back!"

>

>The thing is, if one stops sleeping, one's work quickly suffers.

>Those 6-8 hours on one's back makes the other 16-18 hours more

>effective -- in fact, it makes them possible.

>

>In sadhana -- be it meditation, japa, pooja, or what have you -- we

>expand beyond our limited selves and merge upward into Devi (or

>whatever your conception of the Divine may be). In doing so, we

>vastly expand our energy level, mental and physical resources,

>concept and focus, etc., etc.

>

>Thus instead of merely logging the maximum possible "service" hours,

>we enable ourselves to broaden our view of what must be done, how it

>can be done, and we accomplish it and move on to new tasks. We are

>merely Devi's eyes and ears and hands and arms. By becoming Her, we

>become tools through which She can do more of what must be done. We

>should all strive to become such tools.

>

>Aum MAtangyai NamaH

>

>

>, Lars Hedström <lars@2...>

>wrote:

> >

> > omprem wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Lord. The other aspects of Raja Yoga involve meditation. All

> > > them together make one a better person, more inclined to help

> > > others and less inclined to harm others. Where's the conflict?

> > >

> >

> > The conflict shows up when you have come so far that you feel

>inside

> > that sitting several hours in your flat doing yoga is not so good

>while

> > there is an ocean of tasks right outside your window.

>

>

>

>

 

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

>

> If one becomes perfected, why would he/she stay in a human

> body with all of its limitations and in space and time with all

> those limitations.

 

 

Why not? I find life very enjoyable.

>

> Implicit in your question is an attachment to life. But all

> attachment merely binds you to the mirage of the earthly plane.

 

 

Implicit in this text is an attitude of considering life as something

negative - I do not share that view.

 

We are destroying mother earth, raping her. I for one prefer to stay on

earth or to help her - or to come back in one way or another in my next

life.

 

Regards

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

speak. You are imposing your vision on the world. And you are

depriving others of the ability to become awake by themselves.

 

In addition, spending those hours in personal sadhana makes

one a better person, more able to effect change and to inspire

others with much less effort and much less conflict than those

who do no sadhana.

 

As a yoga/meditation teacher I make more difference in the world

that many because those in my classes are destressed; opened

up; made more perceptive, objective, serene and balanced. They

are less violent, more truthful and ethical, and more helpful. They

do less damage in the world and do more good in the world as a

result. Plus their example inspires others. There is a ripple

effect from doing personal sadhana that calms the world,

especially when others are doing personal sadhana as well.

The world is better place because of them.ust as A church,

synogogue or temple vibrates with sattvic energy because of the

sattva of those attend it. The devotional energy of people

permeates the floors, walls, etc of their place of worship or

sadhana. That devotional energy also permeates other people

and calms them. So it is with those who develop sattva through

personal sadhana.

 

Your way is your way. Do not seek to impose it on others. It is

viable for you. Other paths are viable for other people. All

authentic paths make the sadhak more spiritually aware and

more helpful.

 

Your urgency and willingness to pit one path against another is a

sign that you need to do more sadhana. It is clear by your own

admission that you have done enough sadhana to understand

the value of sadhana.

 

The aim is not to be one with everything. You already are one

with everything. Yoga, that is any spiritual practice, only serves to

make you aware of this connection.

 

Yes, selfless service is important. True Living is important. But

higher still is Brahman, your ultimate identity.

 

Omprem

 

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> > Lord. The other aspects of Raja Yoga involve meditation. All

> > them together make one a better person, more inclined to

help

> > others and less inclined to harm others. Where's the

conflict?

> >

>

> The conflict shows up when you have come so far that you feel

inside

> that sitting several hours in your flat doing yoga is not so good

while

> there is an ocean of tasks right outside your window.

>

> Then you must choose where you want to invest your time.

>

> If yoga has something to do with getting one with everything

this

> conflict must show up sooner or later.

>

> I am talking about own experience. But ofcourse, we have all

different

> experiences of yoga.

>

> Anyhow, Sivananda writes in his book Kundalini Yoga:

>

> "Even Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not necessary. Why do you want

to get

> yourself merged in the Absolute? Have a small veil of

individuality and

> serve here as Nityasiddhas. Possess divine qualities and

move as a

> divine being on this earth."

>

> Isn't here a conflict?

>

> "Selfless service is the highest thing on this earth. Service will

make

> you divine. Service is divine life. Service is eternal life in God.

> Service will give you Cosmic Consciousness—Service that is

selfless,

> without attachment. But nobody wants to serve! Everybody

wants to be

> served by others. You will have to kill the ego."

>

> Lars

[Guest guest]

Omprem:

If one becomes perfected, why would he/she stay in a human

> > body with all of its limitations and in space and time with all

> > those limitations.

 

Lars:

> Why not? I find life very enjoyable.

 

 

If you enjoy limitations be my guest.

 

The human body is a vehicle for working out karma. To consider

it as anything else is to give into ego, desire, and illusion.

 

_____________________

 

 

Omprem:

Implicit in your question is an attachment to life. But all

attachment merely binds you to the mirage of the earthly plane.

 

Lars:

> Implicit in this text is an attitude of considering life as

something negative

 

 

No so, life is not considered negative. It is considered a tool. Any

thing else, such as you, suggest binds one to ignorance of the

true state of aftairs of the universe through focusing on the

ephemeral and seeking lasting happiness from it. You may as

well be chasing a mirage and expecting to be saved from thirst.

 

 

Omprem

 

 

 

Omprem

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > If one becomes perfected, why would he/she stay in a human

> > body with all of its limitations and in space and time with all

> > those limitations.

>

>

> Why not? I find life very enjoyable.

>

> >

> > Implicit in your question is an attachment to life. But all

> > attachment merely binds you to the mirage of the earthly

plane.

>

>

> Implicit in this text is an attitude of considering life as

something

> negative - I do not share that view.

>

> We are destroying mother earth, raping her. I for one prefer to

stay on

> earth or to help her - or to come back in one way or another in

my next

> life.

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

[Guest guest]

Hey Lars,

Just think of all the energy you waste attacking others for their lack

of service, when you could be out serving humanity.

You seem like a pesky bug who just won't quit -- buzzing around every

reply he has just waiting to sting --

Certainly Gandhi would not approve of your behaviour...

 

In a message dated 10/18/2004 5:27:32 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

lars writes:

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> >Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

> >your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

> >ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

> >speak.

>

>

> Would you say the same thing to Gandhi? Was it wrong what he did? He

> should have done sadhana instead?

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm sure Gandhi did sadhana, especially when he was fasting for peace !!!

 

Get a grip Lars --

 

In a message dated 10/18/2004 5:27:32 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

lars writes:

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> >Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

> >your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

> >ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

> >speak.

>

>

> Would you say the same thing to Gandhi? Was it wrong what he did? He

> should have done sadhana instead?

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

> Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

> your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

> ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

> speak.

 

 

Would you say the same thing to Gandhi? Was it wrong what he did? He

should have done sadhana instead?

 

Regards

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

Gandhi was a Karma Yogi not a Raja Yogi but still had an

extremely rigorous sadhana practice. Much more rigorous than

you would be prepared to undertake. He read scripture, sang

bhajans twice daily, practiced mouna (silence) one day a week,

and inflicted punishment on himself when he made what he

considered to be lapses. He had a Gura and an Ashram. He

was disciplined and lead his life according to the Gita. He saw

his life as a sadhana.

 

Even he didn't try to do an ocean of tasks. He picked one task -

Indian independence- and did it very well. He could never have

done that without the years of sadhana that prepared him and

the constant daily sadhana during his independence efforts.

 

 

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> omprem wrote:

>

> >

> > Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right

outside

> > your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To

take

> > ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is

ego

> > speak.

>

>

> Would you say the same thing to Gandhi? Was it wrong what

he did? He

> should have done sadhana instead?

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

[Guest guest]

he did do sadhana and over and above that his work was sadhana. He died with

name of God in his mouth

 

Lars Hedström <lars wrote:

omprem wrote:

>

> Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

> your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

> ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

> speak.

 

 

Would you say the same thing to Gandhi? Was it wrong what he did? He

should have done sadhana instead?

 

Regards

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

omprem wrote:

>

> Gandhi was a Karma Yogi not a Raja Yogi but still had an

> extremely rigorous sadhana practice.

 

His social and political work must have taken a considerabel amount of

time, so much that his sadhana was far less than his social engagements.

 

And this was my point from the beginning.

 

But ofcourse his social and political engagement could also be

understood as sadhana (karma-yoga).

> Much more rigorous than

> you would be prepared to undertake.

 

 

How do you know?

 

Regards

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

SophiasHeaven wrote:

> I'm sure Gandhi did sadhana, especially when he was fasting for peace !!!

>

> Get a grip Lars --

 

 

Ofcourse he did sadhana but the centre of his life was elsewhere. He

wanted to change the world for the better rather than only doing yoga -

and this is my personal preference also.

 

If he instead had done only sadhana, he wouldn't be so praised today.

 

Regards

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

Do you reject the notion of happiness and joy in life?

 

Regards

 

Lars

 

---Omprem:

>

> The human body is a vehicle for working out karma. To consider

> it as anything else is to give into ego, desire, and illusion.

[Guest guest]

You are right in one way, there is such occations when it is wrong to

interfere in other peoples lives.

 

But that wasn't what I had in mind.

 

Is it wrong if people engage themselves to help street-children?

 

Is it wrong if people engage themselves to stop child prostitution?

 

Is it wrong if people engage themselves in Greenpeace to stop the rape

and devastation of Mother Earth?

 

Is it wrong if people engage themselves to force enterprises in the

third world to stop using pesticedes as the workers there have no

protection?

 

Is it wrong if people engage themselves to stop the Auschwitz-terror in

animal slaughteries?

 

Should they have stayed at home instead doing sadhana?

 

Regards

 

Lars

 

--- omprem wrote:

>

> Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right outside

> your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To take

> ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is ego

> speak. You are imposing your vision on the world. And you are

> depriving others of the ability to become awake by themselves.

[Guest guest]

It is not wrong to do any of those things including staying home

and doing sadhana.

 

You ask that your path be okayed but deny that the Raja Yoga

path has legitimacy. Why is that? Are not people entitled be who

they are or do we all have to follow your inclinations?

 

Omprem

 

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> You are right in one way, there is such occations when it is

wrong to

> interfere in other peoples lives.

>

> But that wasn't what I had in mind.

>

> Is it wrong if people engage themselves to help

street-children?

>

> Is it wrong if people engage themselves to stop child

prostitution?

>

> Is it wrong if people engage themselves in Greenpeace to stop

the rape

> and devastation of Mother Earth?

>

> Is it wrong if people engage themselves to force enterprises in

the

> third world to stop using pesticedes as the workers there have

no

> protection?

>

> Is it wrong if people engage themselves to stop the

Auschwitz-terror in

> animal slaughteries?

>

> Should they have stayed at home instead doing sadhana?

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

>

> --- omprem wrote:

> >

> > Just because there is an ocean of tasks to be done right

outside

> > your window doesn't mention that you have to do them. To

take

> > ownership of righting all that you think needs to righted is

ego

> > speak. You are imposing your vision on the world. And you

are

> > depriving others of the ability to become awake by

themselves.

[Guest guest]

It depends on the source of that happiness or joy.

 

One of the characteristics of coming into Self-Realization is the

feeling of bliss.

 

On the other hand, happiness that comes from an attachment to

external objects is fleeting. Those short periods of happiness

are punctuated by long periods of unhappiness and

dissatisfaction leading us to seek other objects to provide

happiness to us. Moreover, those times when we do experience

happiness occur because there are certain conditions operating

- i.e. intense focus and a temporary suspension of desire. When

these two conditions are present we become dimly aware of our

Divine nature. Meditation's method is to create these conditions

intentionallyt.

 

The feeling of happiness that we experience during our daily life

is actually the diluted bliss that comes from being closer to our

spiritual center. We make the mistake of attributitng the

happiness to the external object instead of the temporary

suspension of obstacles to our being aware of our Divinity.

 

In attributing happiness to externals, we condemn ourselves to

keep reincarnating in order to eventually move closer to a true

state of affairs.

 

Omprem

 

, Lars Hedström

<lars@2...> wrote:

>

> Do you reject the notion of happiness and joy in life?

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

>

> ---Omprem:

> >

> > The human body is a vehicle for working out karma. To

consider

> > it as anything else is to give into ego, desire, and illusion.