Gnana Yoga

seekinghga

Something I have thought about since posting this is the phrase "All is God." There lies in that phrase great danger; a most pernicious trap lying in wait for the unwary. The remedy to this, I believe, lies in being able to let go of all attachment and meaning of the subjective self as well as the objective self/universe. If one says "I am a great holy man or master because I have seen God in all and in myself," that person is doomed. Crowley once said that "a man is in no wise valuable for what he is, save in so far as that is understood to be the measure for what he can do." I'd agree with that. You do not want to build some monolithic God composed of the sum of the contents of Maya, with yourself (i.e., your Ego-consciousness) as the binding principle. That is the work of the Black Brothers, not what I mean when I say God. All is Naught. Just remember, when Babalon's cup is leaning toward you, thirstily, "you too, can win Ben Stein's money."

Tinman

Preface: This isn't meant to be argumentative, but here I go none-the-less:

You start out the post with an apology of sorts - and label yourself a humble seeker of truth... but you then go on to explain how you are god too. Are you ok with this?
If everything is God - humble pie to a punch in the eye - what does that mean? What does that get? What have you added to the conversation?

For example, if I started yelling from the roof tops, ALL IS PIKACHU, for that to have any meaning, it would need to be defined. What is your definition of God? Also, what is your definition of Naught?

And finally - why is Maya not God too?

seekinghga

93,

@Tinman said

"Preface: This isn't meant to be argumentative, but here I go none-the-less:"

Namaste.

"1. You start out the post with an apology of sorts - and label yourself a humble seeker of truth... but you then go on to explain how you are god too. Are you ok with this?"

You're missing the point I think. A pebble on the ground is as much God as I. I, as I am in regards to myself--the humble seeker, do not define God; All is God. The I is the apparent divider, viewing God from a defined perspective. But even the I is God, it is whether you identify with it or not that determines its worth in Gnana Yoga, etc..

"2. If everything is God - humble pie to a punch in the eye - what does that mean? What does that get? What have you added to the conversation?"

The title of this thread is "Gnana Yoga." I did not entitle it "Abrahadabra" or "The Only Means To The Completion of the Great Work" or "How To Become A Super-Duper Magi in 10 Easy Steps." The rest should be obvious.

"For example, if I started yelling from the roof tops, ALL IS PIKACHU, for that to have any meaning, it would need to be defined. What is your definition of God? Also, what is your definition of Naught?"

That which formulates the "desire" of the Gnani is Hadit. What is meant by the concept of Nuit would be your "definition" for God. This is just generalization however, those two do not make love in Procrustes bed! Naught is Zero.

"And finally - why is Maya not God too?"

ALL is God. The need for the distinction, again, is that it is a part of the Gnani's path.

93 93/93
Regards

Jim Eshelman

@seekinghga said

"
"2. If everything is God - humble pie to a punch in the eye - what does that mean? What does that get? What have you added to the conversation?"

The title of this thread is "Gnana Yoga." I did not entitle it "Abrahadabra" or "The Only Means To The Completion of the Great Work" or "How To Become A Super-Duper Magi in 10 Easy Steps." The rest should be obvious."

But the fact that it's Gnana Yoga makes the question even more relevant. The whole point of Gnana Yoga is to intellectually struggle beyond capacity with questions that the (Yetziratic) intellect is incapable of handling, persisting to the point that Briatic consciousness awakens.

I thought they were great come-back questions because of how you labelled the topic.

seekinghga

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@seekinghga said
"
"2. If everything is God - humble pie to a punch in the eye - what does that mean? What does that get? What have you added to the conversation?"

The title of this thread is "Gnana Yoga." I did not entitle it "Abrahadabra" or "The Only Means To The Completion of the Great Work" or "How To Become A Super-Duper Magi in 10 Easy Steps." The rest should be obvious."

But the fact that it's Gnana Yoga makes the question even more relevant. The whole point of Gnana Yoga is to intellectually struggle beyond capacity with questions that the (Yetziratic) intellect is incapable of handling, persisting to the point that Briatic consciousness awakens.

I thought they were great come-back questions because of how you labelled the topic."

Thanks very much for adding this Mr. Eshelman. Insight? OMG, you got insight. For sure.

seekinghga

93,

@Tinman said

"2. If everything is God - humble pie to a punch in the eye - what does that mean?"

It means that there is something beyond this mundane existence of earth. It stands that abhinivesha is a means to an end and not an end itself.

"What does that get?"

It gets you freedom from the miasma of sorrow that plagues earthly living--though you must assimilate that earthly living, but at a different level.

"What have you added to the conversation?"

I have added a means to a departure from the life of chasing one's tail round and round and round. It is at the end of the darkest of nights that the light appears great. Understand what the Buddha meant by "all is sorrow." Grasp that concept. Eat it until every tiny spoonful makes you vomit it back up. Then go back for more! All of this is transient. Realize that until you can not realize anymore. There is no heaven which "I" will go to. There is no hell which "I" will go to. When this body dies, so will this phenomenon known as "I" end. Finished. Done. Don't rationalize, don't evoke some God-concept to cover up your fear. Realize that all of this Ego/earthly life is Transient.

Now once you see that all is transient, even this, yea, even this, with all of your being, then can you begin to understand. Those beautiful words, those words.... Liber AL says to:
Remember all ye that existence is pure joy;
that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass
& are done; but there is that which remains.

Only when you see Maya for what it is; only when you see that all is transient; only then will those words leap out from the Stygian poison of earthly joys and sorrows and carry you to the abodes of the heavens. Yea, verily.

93 93/93

Tinman

How does declaring everything to be God, mean that there is something beyond mundane existence...AND, if everything is god, how can anything be mundane? (or is everything now mundane??). I'm not familiar with abhinivesha but I think (from wiki) that it is a reference to self-love... how does this apply to the coversation? - just not catching why you brought that concept out to play.
I seem to have trouble with your logic because what I've asked is "what does saying everything is God get you" and you've responded that it gets you free from "the miasma of sorrow that plagues earthly living"... but that's confusing since you just said everything is God, that must mean that the miasma of sorrow that plagues earthly living is God too. So by postulating God, I get God everywhere so now I can be more free from God here to have God there???

Actually then you go on to confuse me more because you've used the term "earthly living" which leads me to believe that you are about to tell me about non-earthly living but then you go on to declare that there is no heaven. Everything is transient you declare.

Is God Transient?
What is this Maya you speak of? How is Maya not God?

And finally why do you end up breaking my brain again with a parting shout out to the "abodes of the heavens"? Are we supposed to believe in heaven now or are "the heavens" different and if so, how?

Once again I think a definition of God may be helpful (to me). Declaring everything PIKACHU doesn't bring me the same sense of peace that declaring everything God has given you. What is the difference?

seekinghga

@Tinman said

"1. How does declaring everything to be God, mean that there is something beyond mundane existence...AND, if everything is god, how can anything be mundane? (or is everything now mundane??). I'm not familiar with abhinivesha but I think (from wiki) that it is a reference to self-love... how does this apply to the coversation? - just not catching why you brought that concept out to play.

I seem to have trouble with your logic because what I've asked is "what does saying everything is God get you" and you've responded that it gets you free from "the miasma of sorrow that plagues earthly living"... but that's confusing since you just said everything is God, that must mean that the miasma of sorrow that plagues earthly living is God too. So by postulating God, I get God everywhere so now I can be more free from God here to have God there???

Actually then you go on to confuse me more because you've used the term "earthly living" which leads me to believe that you are about to tell me about non-earthly living but then you go on to declare that there is no heaven. Everything is transient you declare.

Is God Transient?
What is this Maya you speak of? How is Maya not God?

And finally why do you end up breaking my brain again with a parting shout out to the "abodes of the heavens"? Are we supposed to believe in heaven now or are "the heavens" different and if so, how?

Once again I think a definition of God may be helpful (to me). Declaring everything PIKACHU doesn't bring me the same sense of peace that declaring everything God has given you. What is the difference?"

Did you hear a whoosh sound passing above your head as you read my posts? Yeah, that was the sound of my words going past you. lmao!!!! You are Me!!! THAT is ME!!

The Royal Path seems better suited to you. Or even the Path of Work...

Tinman

Missed the whoosh sound.

You seem good natured in your response and I enjoy the conversation so please don't take this the wrong way, BUT

I asked you a few follow up questions based on your last response because I feel that you didn't answer the questions I asked you, and I think they are some good questions like how is Maya not God, what do you mean by God...etc.

And instead of addressing those questions, you lay the "oh you aren't getting what I'm saying so maybe this isn't for you" trip on me.

That's a bit rude. If you can't explain your point of view, or haven't considered the questions I'm asking... just say so. Don't patronize me.

New question to ponder:

When you distinguish Maya vs Non-Maya, are you not falling into your very own Maya trap? Seems to me that if you were truly "breathing this realization in all places" then it wouldn't even enter into your mind that there is/was/could be Maya...

seekinghga

93,

@Tinman said

"Missed the whoosh sound.

You seem good natured in your response and I enjoy the conversation so please don't take this the wrong way, BUT

I asked you a few follow up questions based on your last response because I feel that you didn't answer the questions I asked you, and I think they are some good questions like how is Maya not God, what do you mean by God...etc.

And instead of addressing those questions, you lay the "oh you aren't getting what I'm saying so maybe this isn't for you" trip on me.

That's a bit rude. If you can't explain your point of view, or haven't considered the questions I'm asking... just say so. Don't patronize me.

New question to ponder:

When you distinguish Maya vs Non-Maya, are you not falling into your very own Maya trap? Seems to me that if you were truly "breathing this realization in all places" then it wouldn't even enter into your mind that there is/was/could be Maya..."

OK tinman. You've accurately assessed that I meant it all in good faith. I'm sorry, didn't mean to patronize. YOU are ME!! THAT is ME!!!!!!!!

It's very hard to explain to those who haven't seen. I see Maya as a stumbling block, but it is this very stumbling block which propels me forward... Uh, again, it is the point of view that counts. There is no denial. All of THIS is God. It's all God!!!!!!! I cannot impress that enough. You must assimilate all of it. You must. Don't deny. Life/Death; Length/Breadth. Like I said, don't allow "yourself" (the Ego-consciousness) to be the "binding principle." Question everything!! Question your birth. Question your death. Question the little man with the funky breath. Question God. Question why you question God. God is just a convenient statement really. Question "convenient." Question "statement." Question "really." It is whether you identify with it that counts. See "I" as a tool (like a hammer), not as yourself.

A wise philosopher once said, "Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was Syracuse." His name was Shemp Howard.

God is Nuit!! The sum of existence!! Just don't make yourself the "binding principle." !!!!!!!

93 93/93
Regards

Tinman

This last post reminds me of the bit from the Illuminatus Trilogy. You remember:

"Greater Poop: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it. "

seekinghga

93,

@Tinman said

"This last post reminds me of the bit from the Illuminatus Trilogy. You remember:

"Greater Poop: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it. "
"

Ha! I never read that, but what you quoted is pretty damn funny.

OK, I want to clarify some things:

"Abhinivesha or love for earthly life is the main cause of all fears. Abhinivesha is clinging to life and body."
( en.mimi.hu/yoga/abhinivesha.html )
When I said, "abodes of the heavens," that was merely a figure of speech.
When I said, "there is no heaven which 'I' will go to," I was speaking in regards to the Egocentric point of view. As opposed to, what I'll call for convenience sake, the ideal (God) point of view. I think that is a big part of our misunderstanding one another. I have been switching between these two quite frequently. For instance, when I say "all is transient," that is the Egocentric POV again.
You ask how can anything be mundane if All is God. Again, it's the POV which counts. When viewed in regards to the Egocentric, then all is mundane. The goal is, after all, not to bring God "down" to the level of the Ego, but to raise Maya "up" to God. As I said in my first post, "the apotheosis of the universe."
Maya is simply taking the Egocentric as the end truth; identifying with abhinivesha. You are born, grow up, go to school, graduate, get a job, get a house, get married, have kids, get older, retire, die--THAT is Maya. Now, like I said many times before, you can still do these things, don't deny any of it, it is HOW you view it that counts (see AL I:51, quoted in my first post).

I do apologize for being brash earlier tinman. I hope all is well with you good frater.

93 93/93
Namaste

Alias55A

93
ok i get what you are saying, but only general, like you said "its how you view it that counts" which is true, but in order to understand what your saying on a deeper level YOU have to define YOUR personal interpretation of "god", like tinman and pikachu, i understand pikachu b/c i know of the characteristic qualities and its abilities as the cartoon character it is, which gives me more understanding from my relation.

for example, in my personal view i see what you mean through my own perspective as of how i view the universe or "god" for lack of a better term, which to me there isnt, and words wouldnt give how i see it justice, viewing things a certain way still holds images, and pictures are worth more then a thousand words, but yet if i was a damn good poet i might have some ability to give a better clue to the picture.

not trying to give you a hard time, just useless rambling, but its the difinition that counts when explaining.

Tinman

To summarize where we've gotten to:

Everything is Maya (Ego Centric View of the World)
Everything is God (Non Ego Centric View of the World)
It all depends on your POV

Now there's point of view (like how I have the point of view that Alessandra Ambrosio is the hottest Victoria Secrets model), and there's point of view in the more abstract sense (like how I'm the only point of consciousness at these time/space coordinates).

I can't change the time/space pov, but I can change my mind, or my mind can be changed, on who the hottest VC girl is.

Like that movie, American Beauty, I can see a plastic bag blowing in the wind (Maya?) or I can see the beauty of it all in that bags movements (God?).

However, notice the use of the word I. I see this such and such a way. I think the whole world is God.

POV seems to be tied directly into the Ego faculty.

Thoughts?

seekinghga

93,

@Alias55A said

"93
ok i get what you are saying, but only general, like you said "its how you view it that counts" which is true, but in order to understand what your saying on a deeper level YOU have to define YOUR personal interpretation of "god", like tinman and pikachu, i understand pikachu b/c i know of the characteristic qualities and its abilities as the cartoon character

it is, which gives me more understanding from my relation.
for example, in my personal view i see what you mean through my own perspective as of how i view the universe or "god" for lack of a better term, which to me there isnt, and words wouldnt give how i see it justice, viewing things a certain way still holds images, and pictures are worth more then a thousand words, but yet if i was a damn good poet i might have some ability to give a better clue to the picture.

not trying to give you a hard time, just useless rambling, but its the difinition that counts when explaining."

I was gonna simply say that Nuit is God again and be done with it, but I am a gentleman and won't shove Her into the line of fire a third time while I duck and hide in the bushes. Though ultimately it is true, God is Nuit, I don't think it will be very helpful at this phase of the present topic to leave it at that. It appears useful in the beginning stages to define God as the Hindu concept of Brahman; the absolute, all-pervading, impersonal, infinite Oneness. Crowley completely topples the Advaitist system in his "Berashith", as well as in other places, but he too thought that the adoption of an absolute was useful for the beginner. In "Berashith" he writes, "the Hindu denies and abolishes his own finity by the creation of an absolute. As this cannot be done in reality, the process is illusory: yet it is useful in the early stages..." As well, "The esoteric [...] Hindu adopts a middle path. Having projected the Absolute from his mind, he endeavors to unite his consciousness with that of his Absolute, and of course his personality is destroyed in the process. Yet is to be feared that such an adept too often starts on the path with the hideous idea of aggrandizing his own personality to the utmost. [note: what I said about "binding principle"] But his method is so near to the true one that this tendency is soon corrected, as it were automatically." Eventually "All is God" transcends even itself to become "God is Naught." But for now this should suffice.

@Tinman said

"To summarize where we've gotten to:

Everything is Maya (Ego Centric View of the World)
Everything is God (Non Ego Centric View of the World)
It all depends on your POV"

For Everything is God I would say non-Egocentric, 'all-encompassing' view of the world.

"Now there's point of view (like how I have the point of view that Alessandra Ambrosio is the hottest Victoria Secrets model), and there's point of view in the more abstract sense (like how I'm the only point of consciousness at these time/space coordinates).

I can't change the time/space pov, but I can change my mind, or my mind can be changed, on who the hottest VC girl is.

Like that movie, American Beauty, I can see a plastic bag blowing in the wind (Maya?) or I can see the beauty of it all in that bags movements (God?).

However, notice the use of the word I. I see this such and such a way. I think the whole world is God.

POV seems to be tied directly into the Ego faculty.

Thoughts?"

I think I understand what you're getting at. If there is something aware, regardless of where or when, then an identification seems implied. You can say it is God all you wish, but there seems to be an inherent "I" that is cognizant.

The difficulty then seems to be in separating Ego-identity from the impersonal viewpoint. But simply, one is a subjective experience and the other a Universal awareness. There will always be a viewpoint (except in exalted states such as nirvakalpa), it is whether you say "I see" or there is merely "sight" that differentiates.

93 93/93

Bryan

Gnana Yoga makes me queasy.

geocruz

Here is sufi story. The Mullah Nashrudin was out side searching the ground for something. One of his disciples came up to him and said, "Mullah, Mullah what are you looking for?" the Mullah replied, "I am looking for my lost key." The discipled asked, "where did you loose it?" the Mullah replied, "in the house." The discipled asked, "why do you search for it out here?" The Mullah replied, "the light is better out here."