Meditation Instead Of Sleep

[Shivani Devi]

I have the siddhi of invisibility, but it's not like I can EVER get to control it. *sigh*

Quantum phase shifts tend to happen most often when I DON'T want it to and won't happen when I WANT it to...which can be so bloody frustrating!

It's pointless having a siddhi if you don't get to have any control over it....better not to have it...

[captainamerica]

I can control them, speaking from experience. I do not tell or advertise about those to others because ...you know...

Is it technically 100% correct if I say that non-attachement is a satvik quality ? or is it more a transdental one ? It is definitely a higher consciousness value so as your consciousness expands using yoga then naturally this is one of your inclinations...
There are a few standard procedures for getting the god gift of satvik qualities ...like some of those are related to the heart chakra... can the same procedure be used to develop extreme non-attachment ?

[captainamerica]

Edited the last message :-)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by captainamerica

I can control them, speaking from experience. I do not tell or advertise about those to others because ...you know...

Is it technically 100% correct if I say that non-attachement is a satvik quality ? or is it more a transdental one ? It is definitely a higher consciousness value so as your consciousness expands using yoga then naturally this is one of your inclinations...
There are a few standard procedures for getting the god gift of satvik qualities ...like some of those are related to the heart chakra... can the same procedure be used to develop extreme non-attachment ?

I don't place much importance or emphasis on the Gunas...Being a Tantrika, it pays NOT to!

What I personally think, is that Triguna is more of a Vaishnava thing...in particular, a Gaudiya Vaishnava thing...

According to Tantra, non-attachment is BEYOND the Satvik quality, because if you still see it as being a "Satvik quality", it means you are still attached to the concept of it being thus.

Tantrikas can be non-attached to drinking wine, eating fish, having sex...All those things can be seen as being of Tamasic quality..but it is ONLY Tamasic, to the person who makes that association...and yet, if they say to a Tantrika "you should stop doing those things because they are Tamasic...You should do more Satvik things" then the Tantrika will say "according to whom/what?"...then of course, the other will say "according to the Bhagavad-Gita or Bhagavad Purana...Lord Krishna said so!" To which, the Tantrika will say "Well, I am of the Kaula sampradaya...I worship Kali and/or Shiva...I follow the Agamas and the Sutras...not the Puranas or the epics..." Then the other will say "what kind of a Hindu ARE you?..You are stuck in Tamo Guna.." and the Tantrika will say "what IS this Guna thing all about, if not a veiled form of critical judgment anyway?"

When Lord Shiva destroyed the three cities....The Tripurari, it was to show that all of that is STILL Maya...and one can be just as attached to Tamasic things as they can be to Rajasic and Satvik things...it's still all just a mental concept that some use to classify the "religious" from the "irreligious"...even though the "irreligious" don't seem to care, because such judgment calls are not part of their philosophy and practice ANYWAY.

[captainamerica]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I don't place much importance or emphasis on the Gunas...Being a Tantrika, it pays NOT to!

What I personally think, is that Triguna is more of a Vaishnava thing...in particular, a Gaudiya Vaishnava thing...

According to Tantra, non-attachment is BEYOND the Satvik quality, because if you still see it as being a "Satvik quality", it means you are still attached to the concept of it being thus.

Tantrikas can be non-attached to drinking wine, eating fish, having sex...All those things can be seen as being of Tamasic quality..but it is ONLY Tamasic, to the person who makes that association...and yet, if they say to a Tantrika "you should stop doing those things because they are Tamasic...You should do more Satvik things" then the Tantrika will say "according to whom/what?"...then of course, the other will say "according to the Bhagavad-Gita or Bhagavad Purana...Lord Krishna said so!" To which, the Tantrika will say "Well, I am of the Kaula sampradaya...I worship Kali and/or Shiva...I follow the Agamas and the Sutras...not the Puranas or the epics..." Then the other will say "what kind of a Hindu ARE you?..You are stuck in Tamo Guna.." and the Tantrika will say "what IS this Guna thing all about, if not a veiled form of critical judgment anyway?"

When Lord Shiva destroyed the three cities....The Tripurari, it was to show that all of that is STILL Maya...and one can be just as attached to Tamasic things as they can be to Rajasic and Satvik things...it's still all just a mental concept that some use to classify the "religious" from the "irreligious"...even though the "irreligious" don't seem to care, because such judgment calls are not part of their philosophy and practice ANYWAY.

Very apt composition and I agree with it 100%

I think that chitta suddhi means being free from ego and getting in touch with your inherent peace and poise ,obviously that means being free from anger ,fear etc.. did I get it right ?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by captainamerica

Very apt composition and I agree with it 100%

I think that chitta suddhi means being free from ego and getting in touch with your inherent peace and poise ,obviously that means being free from anger ,fear etc.. did I get it right ?

True to my nature, I am onto my sixth shot of Baileys, after consuming a delicious Chicken Pad Thai, which I lovingly crafted upon request from my mother..so, if this makes no sense, I am sorta half asleep anyway...

According to the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, there are five hindrances...krodha, kama, lobha, mada and matsarya...The Buddhists adopted this..Well, Buddhism is based upon Hinduism anyway.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sveta1.asp

I always thought there were eight of these...which had something to do with the eight nooses of Bhairava (Mahakaal)...
http://www.evolveandascend.com/2018/...of-the-aghori/

It is interesting to note that Bhairava is a Deity common to Shaivism and Vajrayana Buddhism alike..but I am going to have to be less tipsy to expound further..

Suffice to say, the last time I drank alcohol was last August..moderation in all things is the key here.

[captainamerica]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

True to my nature, I am onto my sixth shot of Baileys, after consuming a delicious Chicken Pad Thai, which I lovingly crafted upon request from my mother..so, if this makes no sense, I am sorta half asleep anyway...

According to the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, there are five hindrances...krodha, kama, lobha, mada and matsarya...The Buddhists adopted this..Well, Buddhism is based upon Hinduism anyway.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sveta1.asp

I always thought there were eight of these...which had something to do with the eight nooses of Bhairava (Mahakaal)...
http://www.evolveandascend.com/2018/...of-the-aghori/

It is interesting to note that Bhairava is a Deity common to Shaivism and Vajrayana Buddhism alike..but I am going to have to be less tipsy to expound further..

Thank you for the links and the explanation. I added the goal of chitta suddhi to my personal growth list and will start acting on it soon.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Suffice to say, the last time I drank alcohol was last August..moderation in all things is the key here.

Yes, moderation is the key. That is one of the reasons I do not do it as I am pretty sure I will get addicted to it if I try it and then it will have negative consequences. My grandfather died due to this addiction and it temporarily destroyed the family financially as well so it also an emotional issue/bias for me to not do it.

[captainamerica]

Shivani Ji,

Just googled chicken pad thai, sounds yummy, will learn how to make it soon.

I always used to think that Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. There are many other deities as well which are common to both Hinduism and Buddhism.

I have 3 very important spiritual questions that I want to ask Shiv Ji, if possible.

Will ask them one by one only and obviously am okay if it takes a couple of months or more to answer those questions, whenever you feel like it and your schedule permits (and Shiv Ji responds).

The questions are about my sadhana of Vishnu Ji, karma and a yogic mantra respectively.

Please let me know what you think

[captainamerica]

My case of why I think that the ultimate purpose of "life" is expression and not moksha/nirvana.

Shri Krishna Ji once said to Arjun (in Bhagwat Geeta) that not to fear while killing the soldiers on the side of unrighteousness/adharma ... "these soldiers were neither born nor can be killed...they are eternal ... existing before and will continue to exist ... "

So obviously the soul is eternal.

Now the question is why would an eternal soul choose to take "physical birth" or express itself physically in the first place?

More importantly, what will stop the soul from choosing to express itself physically again once it realizes it is eternal again and has attained moksha/nirvana?

Some will say, the soul now has learned now, has got experience now after all these lifetime ...has learned its lessons...so it will decide to stay "home" ....some argument along those lines ...but that is an error.

The yogis inform us that the only thing the soul saves is its individuality, not even its memories/experience/learning. One yogi (who attained permanent nirvikalpa and Sahaja samadhi) writes that "once the soul merges with god(i.e. gets moksha or nirvana ) then the drop of water (soul) goes back to the ocean(god). Now the soul is in touch with every other soul, but it does not lose its individuality, ever. Even though the individuality is not lost, the chemical contents of that particular drop (experiences, learning ...) are now mixed in the entire ocean and belong they now belong to it."

Also, the soul is formless and immutable (just like god). Immutable means it never evolves or "learns", although its instruments may.

So why would a soul (in its "pristine", enlightened, "unlearned state"), who chose to express itself creatively/physically in the first place, will not choose again to express itself again?

The notion that it won't seems absurd to me.

Some will argue that God will stop the soul because God is wise...but hey God gives perfect free will (and individuality) to every soul so that notion is absurd as well.

Now in the book "Conversations with God", God said that whenever a soul merges with him(i.e. gets the highest moksha/nirvana) it realizes its divine nature and because of its divine nature it chooses to express itself (and god) again, so it reemerges! God even said that this happens with every soul, every time, invariably (with the soul's free will )...and so it goes on till eternity.

That being said every major religion says or implies that life is eternal. God said that it is impossible for any soul to get stuck in a particular place or time [because of the mechanisms implemented by him] in this eternal life. God also said that it is his desire (invincible and omnipotent) that every soul "returns to him" or merge with him again. I believe that those are the two reasons that many wise sages and yogis consider Moksha to be important. But it should be kept in mind that the soul re-emerges, every time...because of its divine nature (not learning or experience), to express itself and god again.

Obviously, the divine nature is immutable as well. So, if the soul is choosing to re-emerge again and again because of its divine nature doesn't that mean that it is in divine nature (and hence the ultimate purpose of life) to express itself. Because obviously, the divine nature has the ultimate authority in this subject matter.

The god (and the soul) is not just immutable but unconditional as well so for that reason as well it does not make sense that it will choose not to re-emerge and express itself.

This is just the first draft. I can make it 3-5 times better and make the case more strong, but I am short on time and believe the above explains the gist of what I want to say. If something does not make sense or if there is a logical loophole then please let me know.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by captainamerica

My case of why I think that the ultimate purpose of "life" is expression and not moksha/nirvana.

Shri Krishna Ji once said to Arjun (in Bhagwat Geeta) that not to fear while killing the soldiers on the side of unrighteousness/adharma ... "these soldiers were neither born nor can be killed...they are eternal ... existing before and will continue to exist ... "

So obviously the soul is eternal.

Now the question is why would an eternal soul choose to take "physical birth" or express itself physically in the first place?

More importantly, what will stop the soul from choosing to express itself physically again once it realizes it is eternal again and has attained moksha/nirvana?

Some will say, the soul now has learned now, has got experience now after all these lifetime ...has learned its lessons...so it will decide to stay "home" ....some argument along those lines ...but that is an error.

The yogis inform us that the only thing the soul saves is its individuality, not even its memories/experience/learning. One yogi (who attained permanent nirvikalpa and Sahaja samadhi) writes that "once the soul merges with god(i.e. gets moksha or nirvana ) then the drop of water (soul) goes back to the ocean(god). Now the soul is in touch with every other soul, but it does not lose its individuality, ever. Even though the individuality is not lost, the chemical contents of that particular drop (experiences, learning ...) are now mixed in the entire ocean and belong they now belong to it."

Also, the soul is formless and immutable (just like god). Immutable means it never evolves or "learns", although its instruments may.

So why would a soul (in its "pristine", enlightened, "unlearned state"), who chose to express itself creatively/physically in the first place, will not choose again to express itself again?

The notion that it won't seems absurd to me.

Some will argue that God will stop the soul because God is wise...but hey God gives perfect free will (and individuality) to every soul so that notion is absurd as well.

Now in the book "Conversations with God", God said that whenever a soul merges with him(i.e. gets the highest moksha/nirvana) it realizes its divine nature and because of its divine nature it chooses to express itself (and god) again, so it reemerges! God even said that this happens with every soul, every time, invariably (with the soul's free will )...and so it goes on till eternity.

That being said every major religion says or implies that life is eternal. God said that it is impossible for any soul to get stuck in a particular place or time [because of the mechanisms implemented by him] in this eternal life. God also said that it is his desire (invincible and omnipotent) that every soul "returns to him" or merge with him again. I believe that those are the two reasons that many wise sages and yogis consider Moksha to be important. But it should be kept in mind that the soul re-emerges, every time...because of its divine nature (not learning or experience), to express itself and god again.

Obviously, the divine nature is immutable as well. So, if the soul is choosing to re-emerge again and again because of its divine nature doesn't that mean that it is in divine nature (and hence the ultimate purpose of life) to express itself. Because obviously, the divine nature has the ultimate authority in this subject matter.

The god (and the soul) is not just immutable but unconditional as well so for that reason as well it does not make sense that it will choose not to re-emerge and express itself.

This is just the first draft. I can make it 3-5 times better and make the case more strong, but I am short on time and believe the above explains the gist of what I want to say. If something does not make sense or if there is a logical loophole then please let me know.

Although I put a lot of credence in what Krishna-Ji says and what the Bhagavad-Gita says and all that, I am first and foremost a Yogin.

I am a rather curious blend of a Bhakti Yogi, a Raja Yogi and a Tantra Yogi...so instead of the Bhagavad-Gita and what the scriptures say about the attainment of Moksha and whether or not a Soul/Atman even CAN express itself without the help of the ego, I just tend to fall back on Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms every time here!

According to Patanjali, Swami Svatmarama, Matsyendranath, Lakulisha etc (so I am in quite good company here), the holistic spiritual body is composed of five sheaths (Panch Koshas) with the Atman either in the centre of, or beyond all five Koshas...Atman is Bindu (central point).

The only two Koshas to survive physical death, is the Vijnanamaya Kosha and the Annandomaya Kosha...the whole "Mental Sheath" remains behind and perishes with the death of the physical brain.

The "Wisdom Sheath" carries, what is called, "Samskaras" or soul-impressions, the cumulative manifestation of which, creates and causes Karma to unfold and also, when and where we shall take our next incarnation.

Actually, this is INDEED fortuitous, because while I was looking up the English equivalent for a lot of Sanskrit terms I use, I actually came across this beautiful article by one of MY "mentors", Sally Kempton (and my eyes are stinging with tears of devotion and gratitude - I am crying now):

https://www.yogajournal.com/yoga-101/getting-know

So, in this way, nobody can ever "choose" to reincarnate until AFTER they have obtained Moksha, when the Laws of Karma through accumulated Samskaras are no longer bound by Maya.

This is why obtaining Moksha is seen to be so important.

I am also re-reading the Taittriya Upanishad right now...it's like I am reading it with "fresh eyes" and it is glorious!