[quote=Philippe*;44276] cosmic saviours who have made to vow to deliver all the beings from Samsara before entering Parinirvana (ulimate extinction) but there are more “transitional objects” of focus in the psychological sense.
Philippe[/quote]
made the vow…they are (used) more like…
Mistakes…
Philippe
While it is true that is is not sectarian, it is not devoid of religious mindset neither. I would add that Patanjali mentions Ishwara pranidhana as a major means to reach samadhi. But Ishwara is more a transitional object, concentration on Ishwara is not an end in itself in YS, it is advised to take Ishwara as a focus (ashraya) to reach states of (sabija) samadhis YS I:23-29 ; II:45 and developed positive samskaras which will lead to nirbija samadhi. It can even be considered as the best means if we consider the number of sutras about Ishwara in YS. Moreover it is an integral part of kriya yoga, the yoga of action YS:II:1. It is also written that pranava expressed Ishwara YS I:27. Pranava means the sacred syllable, it is a word designating OM in Vedic literature. So there is mantra recommended. It talks also about mantras to reach siddhis through samyama YSIII:1. And svadhyaya is defined as the means to reach union with the divinity (ishta devata) through the study of the sacred texts YS II:44.
Yes, Patanjali indeed mentions as one of the niyamas that we must surrender to Ishvara and he does mention that meditations done on ishvara are amongst the best methods to attain the ultimate. The meditation on pranava is especially powerful. However, he also says you can just as well use your own breath, focus on the sensations in your body, focus on energy centres to reach the same goal. Patanjali never says which Ishvara, Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva, Krishna, Rama or Hanuman, Jehova or Allah, this is why it is not secetarian. Here ishvara refers to the supreme and divine self, and one is expected to surrender to the divine self. In the Gita Krishna says “Worship me, do everything for me and you will attain me” But Krishna is not talking about himself as a person, he is talking about himself as god-consciousness that we all have and can all attain.
Patanjali never mentions that one should build idols and temples and do all kinds of devotional acts, as we see are done by Bhaktas, whether they be Shaktas, Vaishnavists, or Shaivaist. Even the Ishvara meditations are done in ones own mind. This is because he is not secetarian. He is not concerned with Sadguna Brahman but Nirguna Brahman.
Pleasure is understood as related to suffering, it is the other face of the same coin. The problem is more clinging. In order to remove suffering, you have to remove pleasure by realizing the emptiness of the experiencer. It is an approach through the negative way, the point is getting rid of suffering or more technically duhkha not really getting happiness.
This is where I have a problem. It is not the teaching of Hinduism that the experiencer is empty. In fact the experiencer is full, absolure, pure. Secondly, surely one does not want to get rid of their pleasures but maximise their pleasure. If I had to eat worms, spiders and insects, then surely if instead I got bread, lentils and rice I would be more happy. If I got cheesecake and chocolate mouse I would be even more happier. Similarly, If I get physical pleasures, I can get even greater pleasure by getting astral pleasures. The astral is so much more pleasurable than the physical and I have greater freedom and capacity there. I feel more alive. Similarly, I could get even greater pleasure and enter the higher astrals and meet the devas and buddhas and experience joy and love. I could go even beyond that and experience ananda itself.
Surely then, rather than being equanimous to pleasure or pain, I naturally have a preference for pleasure. I want to be happy, peaceful and liked and not unhappy, unpeaceful and disliked. I want the world to be harmonious, enlightened and noble and not the opposite. Believe me I have tried smiling at my pain and suffering before, trying to treat it just like I would treat pleasure and happiness, only to realise I was deluding myself. I hated the suffering and pain and wanted it to end.
[quote=Surya Deva;44287]This is where I have a problem. It is not the teaching of Hinduism that the experiencer is empty. In fact the experiencer is full, absolure, pure. Secondly, surely one does not want to get rid of their pleasures but maximise their pleasure. If I had to eat worms, spiders and insects, then surely if instead I got bread, lentils and rice I would be more happy. If I got cheesecake and chocolate mouse I would be even more happier. Similarly, If I get physical pleasures, I can get even greater pleasure by getting astral pleasures. The astral is so much more pleasurable than the physical and I have greater freedom and capacity there. I feel more alive. Similarly, I could get even greater pleasure and enter the higher astrals and meet the devas and buddhas and experience joy and love. I could go even beyond that and experience ananda itself.
Surely then, rather than being equanimous to pleasure or pain, I naturally have a preference for pleasure. I want to be happy, peaceful and liked and not unhappy, unpeaceful and disliked. I want the world to be harmonious, enlightened and noble and not the opposite. Believe me I have tried smiling at my pain and suffering before, trying to treat it just like I would treat pleasure and happiness, only to realise I was deluding myself. I hated the suffering and pain and wanted it to end.[/quote]
Everyone is searching for happiness and wants to get rid of suffering in a way even the one who is about to hang himself as it was noticed by Pascal. Happiness is often conceived differently according to people. And it is a legitimate desire.
Feeling the splendour of “fullness” has been one of the reasons why I left Buddhist sadhana quite really for another path with which I have related better… The teachings I was listening were talking about emptiness all the time while what I was experiencing was on the contrary concrete and “full”. So without making a general rule nor with any “holier than thou” attitude, I can say that in my case, I have been called to something else which suited better for my spiritual evolution.
As for equanimity, we are just right now… humans, we bear the infinite but we are externally limited beings. The infinite can express itself within limits. If you draw a segment in the infinite, it is limited and defined in interdependence with the rest but at the same time there is an infinity of points in the segment. The segment is both finite and infinite.
“OM – Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate.
Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate.” Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
“That is whole, this is whole, from whole comes out of whole.
If whole is subtracted (or perceived) from whole, still whole is left.”
There is a physiological limit to our stamina. Patanjali states that vyadhi/illness is the first obstacle on the path.
Philippe
Uhm, Buddhism is a philosophy. Though it may recognize some gods and goddesses, it has no established system of worshiping them; like a priesthood and so forth. Unless you’re talking about other certain sects of Buddhism…
IF WE ONLY BOW TO THE DIVINITY INSIDE OF PEOPLE THEN LETS CRAP EACH OTHERS PERSONALITIES.If you react to any personal atack then you are not in any way shape of performance close to the divine.lol .lets go now and do an observation of each others inner self .LETS REMEMBER HOW EASY WE GOT ANGRY WHEN SOMEONE SAY ANYTHING WE DIDNT LIKE ABOUT US OR ABOUT OUR TOYS.LOL .MMMMMMM STOP LYING TO YOURSELF .
But you’re implying that personality and divinity are different things. So if we crap on each other’s personalities, won’t it be the fault of the person’s personality (lol) if they react and thus, not indicative of one’s divinity or lack thereof?
I know what you’re really trying to convey in your message. Just twisting your words. 
Is all kool brother is a litle message to the guy above you that think he is close to the divine cause he can repeat words that he learn in a second class book.Is evident the the first reactor here is him that does not put effort in understand others people points of view.hahahaha .
Hey Nietzsche was hardcore.But Hardcore is dangerous in this forum.This forum is all about peace and words.lol
When you atack an idea you are expressing that that idea is wrong some how.Well thats not really true.Every idea contain in itself the right and the wrong of that idea.So is relative, so atacking is just a way of saying I dont get the whole thing.lol
[QUOTE=pingoletta;45005]When you atack an idea you are expressing that that idea is wrong some how.Well thats not really true.Every idea contain in itself the right and the wrong of that idea.So is relative, so atacking is just a way of saying I dont get the whole thing.lol[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with this. In my post I was intentionally using convoluted logic. And I’m afraid I am too hardcore for those in this forum. 
lol.you see Im not hardcore Im corehard.
[QUOTE=pingoletta;45018]lol.you see Im not hardcore Im corehard.[/QUOTE]
Haha. I like the way you think. 8)
Buddhism may be called a religion, and schools of Mahayana Buddhism talk about “gods” and “deities”, but if the earlier founded Theravada Buddhism is truly “religion” on par with Hinduism, Islam & Christianity, then it’s about the most un-religious religion I’ve ever heard of. Of course, knowing this actually requires study & not just opinion.
edit: this is replying to no one in particular
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45418]Buddhism may be called a religion, and schools of Mahayana Buddhism talk about “gods” and “deities”, but if the earlier founded Theravada Buddhism is truly “religion” on par with Hinduism, Islam & Christianity, then it’s about the most un-religious religion I’ve ever heard of. Of course, knowing this actually requires study & not just opinion.
edit: this is replying to no one in particular[/QUOTE]
Yeah thats what I was thinking too.
In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires!
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46448]In my experience, Buddhism, either as a thought or religious practice is a ‘mistake’. I shall explain: Buddhism in general is against the desires that keep the all life going, and it dictates that desires should be abandoned immediately if self-realization is to be attained. It makes you to sit on meditation immediately, without ever allowing you to catalyze your emotions to elevate your consciusness!
In my experience, Buddhism is also a very depressing way of life. This has much to do with the way it rejects desires. It also lacks certain precepts to be acknowledged as universal. It is against embodiment, which is one of the essential qualities of man. It is a resignation from life and withdrawal into a symbolic realm of spirituality, where spirituality is not ‘experienced’ but ‘anticipated.’ In other words, Buddhists are not experiencers of spirituality, but the ‘anticipators’ of it.
Buddhism has become a religion with the establishments of Sanghas. And such estabishments are not Buddhist, but cultural extensions - intimately related to South-Asian cultures’ way of life. There can’t be such a thing as Western Buddhist, due to the simple fact that South-Asian cultures are not Western Cultures!
In short, Buddhism’s intention is good, but the way it presents itself is a mistake. Why need Buddhism anyway, while you have Patanjali and his brilliant Yoga Sutras, the scientific, non-religious methods to attain spirituality! More logical, more hands-on scientific approach, and it never promotes the swift abandonement of desires![/QUOTE]
I agree on most counts.
I just recently watched a new, & allegedly award winning documentary called “The Buddha” and it claimed that Siddhartha studied all Indian religions and philosophies, all forms of Yoga and achieved the highest attainments in all of them, he was some kind of super-mystic yogi. However, he was still unsatisfied, still experienced suffering, so he dropped them all and invented Buddhism.
I find this state of affairs highly implausible.
Siddhartha left very insightful teachings, especially on morals, some of which are universally [I]felt[/I] by all people - such as the power of compassion. However, if there is a map for attaining higher layers of Self, the best available source seems to be Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. It is so intricate that perhaps Siddhartha himself had studied it. Yet his teachings do not really overlap with the scientific account of Yoga Sutras in terms of intricate and implicit character of the Self. It is likely that Siddhartha followed a rather different Yogic path; as you implied, and I will add, there is no proof of the undertaking that he mastered all styles of Yoga. After all Buddhists are not really good researchers, but good faith worshippers.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;46479]Siddhartha left very insightful teachings, especially on morals, some of which are universally [I]felt[/I] by all people - such as the power of compassion. However, if there is a map for attaining higher layers of Self, the best available source seems to be Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. It is so intricate that perhaps Siddhartha himself had studied it. Yet his teachings do not really overlap with the scientific account of Yoga Sutras in terms of intricate and implicit character of the Self. It is likely that Siddhartha followed a rather different Yogic path; as you implied, and I will add, there is no proof of the undertaking that he mastered all styles of Yoga. After all Buddhists are not really good researchers, but good faith worshippers.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe that the Patanjali Yoga Sutras had been cataloged that early. & I agree, if you want “researches” go with Theravada, if you want Buddhist “Religion” go with Mahayana. To me, the older Theravada is a much more simple and pragmatic tradition over all the mysticism of the Mahayana, & I prefer things simple and pragmatic. The [B][I]Pali Canon[/I][/B] is great reading! (though, Thich Nhat Hanh’s [B][I]Diamond Sutra[/I][/B] & Sheng-yen’s [B][I]Sutra of Complete Enlightenment Commentary[/I][/B] are excellent, don’t get me wrong…)
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;46497]I don’t believe that the Patanjali Yoga Sutras had been cataloged that early. & I agree, if you want “researches” go with Theravada, if you want Buddhist “Religion” go with Mahayana. To me, the older Theravada is a much more simple and pragmatic tradition over all the mysticism of the Mahayana, & I prefer things simple and pragmatic. The [B][I]Pali Canon[/I][/B] is great reading! (though, Thich Nhat Hanh’s [B][I]Diamond Sutra[/I][/B] & Sheng-yen’s [B][I]Sutra of Complete Enlightenment Commentary[/I][/B] are excellent, don’t get me wrong…)[/QUOTE]
Yes, it didn’t exist that early. But meditation and techniques to attain higher states of being did exist long before the Buddha and were derived from Upanishads and Vedic “Hinduism.” According to Eurocentric versions of Indian history of course.