georgia
Posts
67744Following
394Followers
2015$PAGE_VIEWS
georiga on telegram
georgia@trashserver.net on xmpp
(response times may vary)
तत् त्वम् असि
I post silly cats sometimes
so it turns out Huxley just doesnt know what hes talking about and describes two paths to yoga as fundamentally different, without realizing that each path yields both results (knowledge of God within and knowledge of God without). he seems deceived by one path leading to reincarnation and the other to nibanna (allegedly). what I see here is non-preference for pairs of opposites so that they merge into one nondual, or a form of yajna (sacrificing ones will to the divine will)/karma yoga (selfless service). this is yoga!!
0
0
1
those who obtain atman-brahman realization like the kashmir shaivas call everything a play of consciousness. with mahayanas is everything not also a product of the mind? how is one better? isnt it evil to call what is within (the atman. duh) "void"? for it is both being and nonbeing and existence consciousness bliss, beyond knower and known? it feels like these people who describe what is within as a void or a lack of consciousness have obtained only a lesser state that they may call sunyata or what have you.... could Huxley be misunderstanding? the text describes a path beyond duality, is not yoga the very same? I should just keep reading!
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
I wonder what this could mean, it sounds like sahaja samadhi to me but I'm probably wrong. having put so much faith in atman-as-brahman realization myself as the wannabe unachievable goal of my life it IRRITATES me that he says theres something better??;isnt realizing the Brahman within what leads to knowledge of the immanent AND transcendent God? or is this about nibanna vs samsara, more mahayana stuff? I will enquire further....
1
0
1
