Question:
had a wake up call that I had an unconscious (23 years ago) when the dentist said I was grinding my teeth. He made me a splint (plastic guard) that fit over the top teeth. When I put it in during the day I found that I was tapping my teeth together very frequently. I was unaware that it was happening at all and it shocked me that I could doing something without even being aware of it. I have found much of yoga to be like the splint, it is put in place and then one realizes that, "Boy am I holding a lot of tension there", or "I’m depressed" or, or, or.
Beautifull Wade. True, our inner nature is so full of discoveries. Discovering so helpfull in living better. -Manish M – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Wade
Response:
In seeing religion as art, I like the appeal of Yoga and Zen in striving for the same aesthetic experiences without the use of mind altering substances. I find Zen particularly streamlined. Perhaps more streamlined than Yoga: minimal; deep; poised; dynamic; strong; living; spacious. Yoga and Zen allow fresh aesthetic experiences outside their frames.
It is interesting to wonder why yoga and zen practices are the way they are. Yoga definitely has practices that induce unconscious thoughts, or bring them to the surface, or put one in conditions to challenge the status quo, or allow one to be silent enough to hear the inner voice. Take pranayama, in the extreme it can cause mild hypoxia and modifications to the brain’s processes. Or mantra/meditation where the brain switches from alpha to beta symchronizing clocks. There was also a recent post that talks about Swami Radha’s "Hidden Language" of hatha yoga. Gateways to the unconscious. I do find yoga spacious. As for zen I pretty well have that incorparated within Okido yoga. I assume your swimming practice is still "deep", "streamlined" and "strong" as ever. May your efforts dredge up the layered silt of your mind. I am by no means a expert on the evolution of the science of the mind but it seems that Freud’s great contribution was to point out that the unconscious does exist and that it has a profound affect on why people are the way they are (without them even knowing that it was happening). I think much of spirituality in the past was just the pursuit of getting to this unconscious, but there were just no names for it. Hidden but it permeating everything. I certainly had a wake up call that I had an unconscious (23 years ago) when the dentist said I was grinding my teeth. He made me a splint (plastic guard) that fit over the top teeth. When I put it in during the day I found that I was tapping my teeth together very frequently. I was unaware that it was happening at all and it shocked me that I could doing something without even being aware of it. I have found much of yoga to be like the splint, it is put in place and then one realizes that, "Boy am I holding a lot of tension there", or "I’m depressed" or, or, or. Wade
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The circumstances of the early revelations, in remote heights of a mount near Mecca, and the behaviour of Mohammad after receiving the first revelations (literally being awe-stricken for days; taking refuge at home under a blanket with a "fever"), could also suggest involvement of "entheogen" substances, known to Magi (plural of Magus, the root of the English word *magic*). An article a while back here in alt.yoga, I think entitled "Soma Raja", suggested a provocative view in which the sacred Vedas were revealed under trance induced by "Soma" (magic mushroom Fly Agaric). A practice also known to early Iranian religions (Mithraism, Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism), albeit later abandoned, and even forgotten, and still shrouded in mystery. The symbolism however survived despite ferocious spread of Islam, owed to its explosive ideological energy, and the primed social environments.
Hi Shahin, The use of drugs to bring forward revelations in prophets and artistic expression by (I would assume) bringing to consciousness the basic subconcious and unconscious mental constructs that make up human minds would explain the aesthetic appeal of religious religious texts and art. Both appeal since they are a glimpse into the depths of the human mind. I find it in some ways appealing that this explosive ideological energy could be brought about about by slightly unhinged people. Puts a whole new "spin" on the "War on Drugs" as being a "War on the Inner Mind". Do conservative minded people repress the unconscious? Never thought of it that way before. Wade
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The circumstances of the early revelations, in remote heights of a mount near Mecca, and the behaviour of Mohammad after receiving the first revelations (literally being awe-stricken for days; taking refuge at home under a blanket with a "fever"), could also suggest involvement of "entheogen" substances, known to Magi (plural of Magus, the root of the English word *magic*). An article a while back here in alt.yoga, I think entitled "Soma Raja", suggested a provocative view in which the sacred Vedas were revealed under trance induced by "Soma" (magic mushroom Fly Agaric). A practice also known to early Iranian religions (Mithraism, Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism), albeit later abandoned, and even forgotten, and still shrouded in mystery. The symbolism however survived despite ferocious spread of Islam, owed to its explosive ideological energy, and the primed social environments. Hi Shahin,
Hi Wade The use of drugs to bring forward revelations in prophets and artistic expression by (I would assume) bringing to consciousness the basic subconcious and unconscious mental constructs that make up human minds would explain the aesthetic appeal of religious texts and art. Both appeal since they are a glimpse into the depths of the human mind.
In seeing religion as art, I like the appeal of Yoga and Zen in striving for the same aesthetic experiences without the use of mind altering substances. I find Zen particularly streamlined. Perhaps more streamlined than Yoga: minimal; deep; poised; dynamic; strong; living; spacious. Yoga and Zen allow fresh aesthetic experiences outside their frames. In contrast, most Classical religions are set in heavy frames. Cluttered; Byzantine; convoluted and generally needing repairs and consignment to museums. 
I find it in some ways appealing that this explosive ideological energy could be brought about about by slightly unhinged people.
Frequently, that seems to be the case. Puts a whole new "spin" on the "War on Drugs" as being a "War on the Inner Mind". Do conservative minded people repress the unconscious? Never thought of it that way before.
Speaking of "unconscious", drugs, and conservatives, reminded me of an article I earlier read in one of your nearly local papers. The mauling of an "unhinged" (even "false") prophet by own progeny. Castration … ahem, removal of ovaries complex? Just to show how fickle ideologies can be. Please see below. Personally, I am quite fond of Freud. Firstly as an artist for his brilliant use of mythology, then as a scientist: bold, imaginative, flawed … with explosive ideas! :) Forgive the diversion, but it relieves me of further elaborating on a subject on which I have already used a good deal of artistic licence. :) Wade
Nice to talk to you again Wade. Shahin Toronto Star www.thestar.ca November 14, 2003 Freud goes up in smoke Granddaughter dismisses theories as outdated Psychoanalysis done in by new drug therapies By JUDY GERSTEL Would the last Freudian please turn out the lights? The dimming of Freud’s influence and fading of what he preached and practised – from penis envy to psychoanalysis – are making him little more than a footnote of history despite his brand name. "The idea that the unconscious mind makes people ill is no longer credible," says Edward Shorter, author of ‘A History Of Psychiatry’ and history of medicine professor at the University of Toronto (www.utoronto.ca), on sabbatical leave this year. "It’s hard to imagine a scientific article in psychiatry that would treat him even as footnote." In the film ‘Neighbours: Freud And Hitler In Vienna’, which opens the Rendezvous With Madness Film Festival tonight, Freud’s granddaughter Sophie reminisces about her famous relative. "In my eyes, both Adolf Hitler and my grandfather were false prophets of the 20th century." Retired as a professor of psychology at Simmons College in Boston, Sophie Freud will be at tonight’s screening and will participate in a discussion afterwards. She dismisses most of her grandfather’s theories as "outdated" and says that another psychiatrist, Irving Goffman, "had a much better grasp on human motivation than Freud." She also faults her grandfather for "being very angry about any critique and viewing people who criticized him, or thought otherwise, as villains." Freud and Hitler didn’t just share a neighbourhood in Vienna, she says in the film. "They also shared the ambition to convince other men of the one and only truth that they had come upon." Speaking by phone from Boston, Sophie Freud attacks Sigmund’s certainty. "Never could he be wrong," she says. "That lasted for 50 years after his death, until a few people started to dare to say, "Yes, but …" Before long, "but" became outright scepticism. "Penis envy, the bad mother – nobody believes that stuff anymore," says Shorter. "Completely absurd," agrees historian of psychology Sonu Shamdasani of the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine in London, England, and author of ‘Jung And The Making Of Modern Psychology: The Dream Of A Science’. Freudian beliefs and psychoanalysis, he says, "were never a science. Freud was a fashion, and then he became unfashionable." In little more than a century, Sigmund Freud went from upstart to irrelevant. But in between, during the golden age of psychoanalysis from 1920 to 1970, he was regarded as a messiah and an intellectual icon. "Everyone was into it," recalls Dr. Joel Paris, chief of the department of psychiatry at McGill University, about Freud’s theories and psychoanalysis. "This is what we talked about and believed." Unlike most analytical psychiatrists training in the 1960s, Paris didn’t go to a psychoanalytic institute. "And I was considered a rebel for not doing it, " he says. He adds, "I think it was a case of the Emperor’s new clothes." Paris is completing a book on "how it happened that 40 years ago, psychoanalysts were leaders of psychiatry and today they have become marginal." One reason, he says, is because at the time psychiatry didn’t really have anything else to offer. Plus, "the public relations was really excellent because they said you had to be analyzed too, so we all got analyzed. Once you’ve been analyzed and the longer you’ve spent on couch, isn’t it harder to say, `Maybe this wasn’t the best idea’?" Psychology historian Shamdasani says Freud was "a good marketer." "Freudian legend erroneously gave Freud credit for formulating a revolutionary theory, which it is nothing of the sort," he says. But even today Freud is not without some diehard disciples, a dwindling coterie who still practise Freudian analysis. "A few of these aging dinosaurs clung to the true faith," says Shorter, "but psychoanalysis has really vanished from psychiatry." The granddaughter of the father of psychoanalysis explains, "The bad thing was that psychoanalysis kept itself apart from the scientific advances of time, stuck in a 19th-century way of thinking." Freud’s status started to take a tumble in the 1960s when authority and established ideas were overturned, in particular those that he represented: institutionalized medicine, psychiatric treatment, patriarchy. "It started with his view of women," Sophie Freud says, explaining her disillusionment with her grandfather’s thinking. "If you didn’t have a vaginal orgasm, you were not a mature woman, and the clitoris didn’t count. Stuff like that, penis envy, it was amazing. Women believed the great man more than their own bodily experiences." But she doesn’t hold Freud responsible for the subjugation of women. "His ideas grew out of society. He mirrored in his theories the belief that women were secondary and were not the norm and didn’t quite measure up to the norm." But what really did in Freud was not feminism but drugs, according to Shorter. Beginning with Miltown in the 1950s, the efficacy of pharmaceuticals in fixing mental ailments from schizophrenia to depression made Freud’s theories outmoded, even risible. "The mechanism could not possibly be the unconscious mind," says Shorter. "These drugs address the brain." Other factors, too, contributed to the collapse of Freudianism: historical research revealing the falseness of the Freudian legend, the rise of evidence-based medicine, the motivation of psychiatry to get back into the medical mainstream, the theories of developmental psychology that contradicted Freud’s theories about childhood, and competing psychotherapeutic approaches including cognitive behaviour therapy which was shown to be more effective than psychoanalysis. Finally, a flap in the mid-1980s about "recovery" during therapy of repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse and satanic rituals served as a nail in the coffin. "If penis envy made us look dumb, this will make us look totally gullible," said psychiatrist Paul McHugh at the time, while chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. The latest thrust in the demise of Freud is brain research. "The big shots in psychiatry now are people who do imaging and genetics," says McGill’s Paris. With biology and brain chemistry accountable for psychiatric disorders and technology replacing hypothesizing, Freud’s theories have gone the way of leeches and laudanum. Could it be that Freud is the Ptolemy of medicine, Ptolemy being the astronomer circa 150 A.D. who believed the earth was the centre of the universe? Sophie Freud believes her grandfather deserves some respect for his ideas, if not adherents. "There’s no need to tear down the interesting things he thought about," she says. Paris says there’s a legacy that does need to be retained. "Psychoanalysis taught us to listen to our patients, to empathize, to spend time with them," he says. Also, he says, "Everybody agrees that … read more »
Response:
Well if he had discovered everything than why did he depend on Deveta to tell him to start a new religion. Clearly, he had lot more to learn even after his so called enlightenment – Manish M This is a very very weak argument.
Well I believe an argument with a fact is never a weak argument and it is better than countless arguments based on prejudice. But that is just my belief and you or anyone else dont necessarily have to agree with that Acutally, it is we have a lot more to learn rather than Him. Thank you very much for the discussion.
Thank you too. – Manish M – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Best, Yuan No – there are also major differences between them. One of the most foundamental difference is that there is no GOD in Buddhism. The notion of GOD is totally removed, We are all absolutely equal. Everyone can become a Buddha. If religion requires a GOD, then from this perspective, I do not consider Buddhism a religion. Best, Yuan I am not claiming that Budhism knows all there is about Hinduism or it is exactly same as Hinduism. I am saying Hinduism has discovered all that is there in Buddhism. That also means Hinduism has more discoveries and knowledges THAN Buddhism. I had been thinking about this issue of Buddhism not having GOD from quite some time. When I analysed based on my research and meditation experiences I found the answers to be very interesting. I found that Buddha went to only a certain level of revelations and discovered Nirvana but not the rest of the spiritual secrets. Which is quite fine. Once you are convinced about Nirvana then you feel very satisfied and one does not need to go further in his/her quest. But that does not mean God is not there. That simply means Buddha he didn’t discover it. Now I know this would sound astonishing to many people. Buddha is considered a legend, but so ARE MANY OTHERS who have claimed the existence of GOD. Or could be the other way around. Many others who had claimed the existence of GOD because they had not reached the ultimate level of enlightenment and used the concept of GOD to express the mysteries of their own experience. I believe Buddha had spent years to learn Yoga and must knew the notion of GOD. It was Only after he had tried his own search and path. He finally successfully attained the true ultimate level of enlightenment and discovered that there is no mystery GOD, only Buddhas before him. So he knew everyone can become a Buddha just like him as well. Therefore he created Buddhism without any notion of GOD. Best, Yuan There are clear logical reasoning of Buddha not being able to discover the ultimate. It is that he did not have anyone to guide him to that and that he was experimenting alone randomly. It is exactly like someone trying to discover the entire science by himself. While he may have struck upon an important discovery he didn’t find everything. Here is a sort of proof: Buddha saw his lives and saw how he got re-born. From that he understood HOW NOT TO get re-born and then he propagated the knowledge. Ok so far so good. BUT If you remember he DID COME ACROSS A Devtaa. Devtaa told him to propagate his knowledge. So Buddhism does accept the existence of Devtaa. This is perfectly in line with Hinduism. Now lets see what Bhagwa Geeta has to say about Devtaa and GOD (Param Bhrahmaa). It says Param Brahmaa is the Devtaa of all Devtaa (period). So GOD does exists. And even Buddhism has excepted it indirectly by accepting Devataa. When Devtaa can guide Buddha it clearly means that there are more knowledge Spiritual Beings than the enlightened people (like Buddha) and ones who can tell enlightened ones what to do. Another proof is that Islam has discovered it. Prophet Mohammed didn’t discover it initially. He had spiritual visions and everything. Only one day while practicing the levitation when he went to Jerusalem (spiritually) he then got connected to GOD. HE admitted that and that is what prompted the first mosque in Jerusalem. If he didn’t spiritually visit Jerusalem hw would have missed the contact of GOD, BEING A SPIRITUAL PERSON Christianity has presented the Idea of GOD as well. Three (major) religions originating in different times and parts of the world are claiming about GOD which is far from being. So again that concludes that Buddhism is not wrong and it is not in contradiction with other religions. It is only limited to experiences of Buddha, who did not have complete exposure to the truth. But had good enough (exposure) to understand and device the method of the Nirvana for raising oneself above suffering permanently. P.S. Based on that I would like to correct my initial comparison of Nirvana with Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Nirvikalpa Samadhi produces Nirvana. BUT you can attain Nirvana without Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This was a subtle error in my last presentation of this point. The way one attains Nirvana without NirVikalpa Samadhi is through character purification like Buddha has preached. This will be good enough for not being born. But that does not end the world of discovery of Spiritual Cosmos. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is Attaining GOD which is Attaining Nirvana through attaining (oneness with) GOD. –Thanks Manish M
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or could be the other way around. No chance … He finally successfully attained the true ultimate level of enlightenment and discovered that there is no mystery GOD, only Buddhas before Well if he had discovered everything than why did he depend on Deveta to tell him to start a new religion. Clearly, he had lot more to learn even after his so called enlightenment – Manish M
This is a very very weak argument. Acutally, it is we have a lot more to learn rather than Him. Thank you very much for the discussion. Best, Yuan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No – there are also major differences between them. One of the most foundamental difference is that there is no GOD in Buddhism. The notion of GOD is totally removed, We are all absolutely equal. Everyone can become a Buddha. If religion requires a GOD, then from this perspective, I do not consider Buddhism a religion. Best, Yuan I am not claiming that Budhism knows all there is about Hinduism or it is exactly same as Hinduism. I am saying Hinduism has discovered all that is there in Buddhism. That also means Hinduism has more discoveries and knowledges THAN Buddhism. I had been thinking about this issue of Buddhism not having GOD from quite some time. When I analysed based on my research and meditation experiences I found the answers to be very interesting. I found that Buddha went to only a certain level of revelations and discovered Nirvana but not the rest of the spiritual secrets. Which is quite fine. Once you are convinced about Nirvana then you feel very satisfied and one does not need to go further in his/her quest. But that does not mean God is not there. That simply means Buddha he didn’t discover it. Now I know this would sound astonishing to many people. Buddha is considered a legend, but so ARE MANY OTHERS who have claimed the existence of GOD. Or could be the other way around. Many others who had claimed the existence of GOD because they had not reached the ultimate level of enlightenment and used the concept of GOD to express the mysteries of their own experience. I believe Buddha had spent years to learn Yoga and must knew the notion of GOD. It was Only after he had tried his own search and path. He finally successfully attained the true ultimate level of enlightenment and discovered that there is no mystery GOD, only Buddhas before him. So he knew everyone can become a Buddha just like him as well. Therefore he created Buddhism without any notion of GOD. Best, Yuan There are clear logical reasoning of Buddha not being able to discover the ultimate. It is that he did not have anyone to guide him to that and that he was experimenting alone randomly. It is exactly like someone trying to discover the entire science by himself. While he may have struck upon an important discovery he didn’t find everything. Here is a sort of proof: Buddha saw his lives and saw how he got re-born. From that he understood HOW NOT TO get re-born and then he propagated the knowledge. Ok so far so good. BUT If you remember he DID COME ACROSS A Devtaa. Devtaa told him to propagate his knowledge. So Buddhism does accept the existence of Devtaa. This is perfectly in line with Hinduism. Now lets see what Bhagwa Geeta has to say about Devtaa and GOD (Param Bhrahmaa). It says Param Brahmaa is the Devtaa of all Devtaa (period). So GOD does exists. And even Buddhism has excepted it indirectly by accepting Devataa. When Devtaa can guide Buddha it clearly means that there are more knowledge Spiritual Beings than the enlightened people (like Buddha) and ones who can tell enlightened ones what to do. Another proof is that Islam has discovered it. Prophet Mohammed didn’t discover it initially. He had spiritual visions and everything. Only one day while practicing the levitation when he went to Jerusalem (spiritually) he then got connected to GOD. HE admitted that and that is what prompted the first mosque in Jerusalem. If he didn’t spiritually visit Jerusalem hw would have missed the contact of GOD, BEING A SPIRITUAL PERSON Christianity has presented the Idea of GOD as well. Three (major) religions originating in different times and parts of the world are claiming about GOD which is far from being. So again that concludes that Buddhism is not wrong and it is not in contradiction with other religions. It is only limited to experiences of Buddha, who did not have complete exposure to the truth. But had good enough (exposure) to understand and device the method of the Nirvana for raising oneself above suffering permanently. P.S. Based on that I would like to correct my initial comparison of Nirvana with Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Nirvikalpa Samadhi produces Nirvana. BUT you can attain Nirvana without Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This was a subtle error in my last presentation of this point. The way one attains Nirvana without NirVikalpa Samadhi is through character purification like Buddha has preached. This will be good enough for not being born. But that does not end the world of discovery of Spiritual Cosmos. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is Attaining GOD which is Attaining Nirvana through attaining (oneness with) GOD. –Thanks Manish M
Response:
don’t forget that hinduism invented and supported the caste system that was the hell of existence if you weren’t born in the correct caste…and it wa also the system that treated women like chattel…
I have already said that as time goes by religions get influenced by all sorts of prejudice, wrong philosophies cultural influence. The mythological part & religious part of hinduidam are problem. Yogic part is helpfull. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – buddy was born in a dravidian family and renounced caste…course he wasn’t so great about the position of women, but he did better than the other folks at the time… that’s what so many untouchables in india today are converting to buddism…buddy and buddyism never supported such evils…. and to tout hinduism as the mother of all religions is just religious cant…part of the hinduist myth that is sheer nonsense… i don’t think buddyism is any better you understand…all religions are crap… as buddy said, and he never practiced the nonsense called buddyism…you must find your way yourself….he said… so this is a stupid argument..buddhism vs hinduism…go and practice…and shut up talking about such unanswerable questions. this is just a pissing contest…..giggl. h.
Response:
No – there are also major differences between them. One of the most
foundamental difference is that there is no GOD in Buddhism. The notion of GOD is totally removed, We are all absolutely equal. Everyone can become a Buddha. If religion requires a GOD, then from this perspective, I do not consider Buddhism a religion. Best, Yuan
I am not claiming that Budhism knows all there is about Hinduism or it is exactly same as Hinduism. I am saying Hinduism has discovered all that is there in Buddhism. That also means Hinduism has more discoveries and knowledges THAN Buddhism. I had been thinking about this issue of Buddhism not having GOD from quite some time. When I analysed based on my research and meditation experiences I found the answers to be very interesting. I found that Buddha went to only a certain level of revelations and discovered Nirvana but not the rest of the spiritual secrets. Which is quite fine. Once you are convinced about Nirvana then you feel very satisfied and one does not need to go further in his/her quest. But that does not mean God is not there. That simply means Buddha he didn’t discover it. Now I know this would sound astonishing to many people. Buddha is considered a legend, but so ARE MANY OTHERS who have claimed the existence of GOD. There are clear logical reasoning of Buddha not being able to discover the ultimate. It is that he did not have anyone to guide him to that and that he was experimenting alone randomly. It is exactly like someone trying to discover the entire science by himself. While he may have struck upon an important discovery he didn’t find everything. Here is a sort of proof: Buddha saw his lives and saw how he got re-born. From that he understood HOW NOT TO get re-born and then he propagated the knowledge. Ok so far so good. BUT If you remember he DID COME ACROSS A Devtaa. Devtaa told him to propagate his knowledge. So Buddhism does accept the existence of Devtaa. This is perfectly in line with Hinduism. Now lets see what Bhagwa Geeta has to say about Devtaa and GOD (Param Bhrahmaa). It says Param Brahmaa is the Devtaa of all Devtaa (period). So GOD does exists. And even Buddhism has excepted it indirectly by accepting Devataa. When Devtaa can guide Buddha it clearly means that there are more knowledge Spiritual Beings than the enlightened people (like Buddha) and ones who can tell enlightened ones what to do. Another proof is that Islam has discovered it. Prophet Mohammed didn’t discover it initially. He had spiritual visions and everything. Only one day while practicing the levitation when he went to Jerusalem (spiritually) he then got connected to GOD. HE admitted that and that is what prompted the first mosque in Jerusalem. If he didn’t spiritually visit Jerusalem hw would have missed the contact of GOD, BEING A SPIRITUAL PERSON Christianity has presented the Idea of GOD as well. Three (major) religions originating in different times and parts of the world are claiming about GOD which is far from being. So again that concludes that Buddhism is not wrong and it is not in contradiction with other religions. It is only limited to experiences of Buddha, who did not have complete exposure to the truth. But had good enough (exposure) to understand and device the method of the Nirvana for raising oneself above suffering permanently. P.S. Based on that I would like to correct my initial comparison of Nirvana with Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Nirvikalpa Samadhi produces Nirvana. BUT you can attain Nirvana without Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This was a subtle error in my last presentation of this point. The way one attains Nirvana without NirVikalpa Samadhi is through character purification like Buddha has preached. This will be good enough for not being born. But that does not end the world of discovery of Spiritual Cosmos. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is Attaining GOD which is Attaining Nirvana through attaining (oneness with) GOD. –Thanks Manish M
Response:
Another proof is that Islam has discovered it [god]. Prophet Mohammed didn’t discover it initially. He had spiritual visions and everything. Only one day while practicing the levitation when he went to Jerusalem (spiritually) he then got connected to GOD. HE admitted that and that is what prompted the first mosque in Jerusalem. If he didn’t spiritually visit Jerusalem hw would have missed the contact of GOD, BEING A SPIRITUAL PERSON
An anecdotal aside, if I may: :) A mysterious dissident in early Seventh century, a Persian Magus (Zoroastrian priest) known in Islamic records as Salman the Persian, after his excommunication by Iran’s [at the time] Magus dominated ruling classes (just as it is now in the garb of Islam), fled west to Arabia, escaping possible persecution, during a period of political and social upheaval in Iran; a crumbling ancient Empire at the time, just years before the emergence of Islam in Arabia. This Magus, in Arabia, encounters young Mohammad and strikes a close friendship with him. The influence of Salman the Persian on Mohammad is incontrovertible, despite a lack of accurate records about their relationship, which remains to this day a subject of dispute and speculation. Zoroastrian religion and its scared literature, comprising tomes like Gathas and Avesta, trace their roots to the same cultures that produced Vedas, and very much in the same style; albeit with a dualistic liturgy, compared to pantheistic perspective of Vedas. Zoroastrian cosmology rang well with Near Eastern cultures, mostly Semites (Hebrews and Arabs), also Greco/Romans, who through contacts and interaction with the influential Persian Empire, absorbed many of its precepts. Salman, probably a reformist on the run from a conservative and corrupt Imperial system which was high-jacked by corrupt priests, and ripe for change due to brewing social strife, could not have met a better soul-mate and companion than Mohammad, himself an idealist, orphaned at an early age, and possessed with a strong sense of social justice. Arabia of the time itself was ravaged by disunity, ignorance and corruption, ruled by a handful of powerful clans and families; as if it has changed much since then! The meeting of the two minds may have sparked off "revelations" in Mohammad (an illiterate) later to be written in verses in Qora’n, the holy book of Islam, as direct words of God. The style of this book is lyrical, similar to Gathas and Vedas, though Mohammad drew on Semitic folkloric traditions appealing to local sensibilities, rather than from an aloof Persia, or distant India, where indeed the original influences of Islam may be traced. Islam’s five times a day prayer for example, a practice of mind/body focus through physical motions mixed with recitation of mantra like verses to maintain attention, doubtless indicates yoga influences. The circumstances of the early revelations, in remote heights of a mount near Mecca, and the behaviour of Mohammad after receiving the first revelations (literally being awe-stricken for days; taking refuge at home under a blanket with a "fever"), could also suggest involvement of "entheogen" substances, known to Magi (plural of Magus, the root of the English word *magic*). An article a while back here in alt.yoga, I think entitled "Soma Raja", suggested a provocative view in which the sacred Vedas were revealed under trance induced by "Soma" (magic mushroom Fly Agaric). A practice also known to early Iranian religions (Mithraism, Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism), albeit later abandoned, and even forgotten, and still shrouded in mystery. The symbolism however survived despite ferocious spread of Islam, owed to its explosive ideological energy, and the primed social environments. The Islamic expansion began in the late Seventh century, and brought in its wake more than 200 years of despised Arab rule in Iran, which didn’t end until 10th century, when Iranians began to recover from one of the most devastating invasions of their land, to be equalled only by the invasion of the Mongols two centuries later, itself provoked by the Arabs who wanted to thwart an independent Iran. Ironically, the same Mongols, in time, exacted as destructive a blow to the Arabs as they dealt to the Iranians, which brings to mind the traitorous three Persian Gulf wars in the past twenty years. History as they say, repeats itself! The Iranians managed to re-established a measure of national and cultural independence within a sea of Islamic world, and an astonishing period of creativity in Iranian arts and science suddenly flowered in an environment of liberty and patronage. In spite of the dominance of Islam, Persian arts, particularly poetry, in their lyric, allegorical style, abounded in allusions to "challis" and "wine", speaking of communion with God; a practice established in Christian rituals. And such myths meandered their way to the "Holy Grail" quest, probably an allusion to some mysterious "entheogen" substance. Much of such ideas were anathema to formal practice of Islam. But sophistication of Persian expressions evaded scrutiny by Clerics in objecting to ample hints of pantheism, expounded by Sufis acting as subtle links to pre-Islamic times. The article I mentioned above, if I remember correctly, went as far as speculating that Sanskrit itself as a highly sophisticated language may owe its rapid development to ritual consumption of Soma by priests, after inducing higher levels of perceptual experiences which were diligently captured in linguistic forms. A charming speculation, however flawed that it may well be. "God", it seems to me, remains not but an artefact of the mind. A form of art. Shahin
Response:
so this is a stupid argument..buddhism vs hinduism…go and practice…and shut up talking about such unanswerable questions. this is just a pissing
If you dont like it then you dont have to read it You need lot more practice looks like contest…..giggl. h.
hmhmhmhm
Response:
Or could be the other way around.
No chance … He finally successfully attained the true ultimate level of enlightenment and discovered that there is no mystery GOD, only Buddhas before
Well if he had discovered everything than why did he depend on Deveta to tell him to start a new religion. Clearly, he had lot more to learn even after his so called enlightenment – Manish M
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No – there are also major differences between them. One of the most foundamental difference is that there is no GOD in Buddhism. The notion of GOD is totally removed, We are all absolutely equal. Everyone can become a Buddha. If religion requires a GOD, then from this perspective, I do not consider Buddhism a religion. Best, Yuan I am not claiming that Budhism knows all there is about Hinduism or it is exactly same as Hinduism. I am saying Hinduism has discovered all that is there in Buddhism. That also means Hinduism has more discoveries and knowledges THAN Buddhism. I had been thinking about this issue of Buddhism not having GOD from quite some time. When I analysed based on my research and meditation experiences I found the answers to be very interesting. I found that Buddha went to only a certain level of revelations and discovered Nirvana but not the rest of the spiritual secrets. Which is quite fine. Once you are convinced about Nirvana then you feel very satisfied and one does not need to go further in his/her quest. But that does not mean God is not there. That simply means Buddha he didn’t discover it. Now I know this would sound astonishing to many people. Buddha is considered a legend, but so ARE MANY OTHERS who have claimed the existence of GOD.
Or could be the other way around. Many others who had claimed the existence of GOD because they had not reached the ultimate level of enlightenment and used the concept of GOD to express the mysteries of their own experience. I believe Buddha had spent years to learn Yoga and must knew the notion of GOD. It was Only after he had tried his own search and path. He finally successfully attained the true ultimate level of enlightenment and discovered that there is no mystery GOD, only Buddhas before him. So he knew everyone can become a Buddha just like him as well. Therefore he created Buddhism without any notion of GOD. Best, Yuan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are clear logical reasoning of Buddha not being able to discover the ultimate. It is that he did not have anyone to guide him to that and that he was experimenting alone randomly. It is exactly like someone trying to discover the entire science by himself. While he may have struck upon an important discovery he didn’t find everything. Here is a sort of proof: Buddha saw his lives and saw how he got re-born. From that he understood HOW NOT TO get re-born and then he propagated the knowledge. Ok so far so good. BUT If you remember he DID COME ACROSS A Devtaa. Devtaa told him to propagate his knowledge. So Buddhism does accept the existence of Devtaa. This is perfectly in line with Hinduism. Now lets see what Bhagwa Geeta has to say about Devtaa and GOD (Param Bhrahmaa). It says Param Brahmaa is the Devtaa of all Devtaa (period). So GOD does exists. And even Buddhism has excepted it indirectly by accepting Devataa. When Devtaa can guide Buddha it clearly means that there are more knowledge Spiritual Beings than the enlightened people (like Buddha) and ones who can tell enlightened ones what to do. Another proof is that Islam has discovered it. Prophet Mohammed didn’t discover it initially. He had spiritual visions and everything. Only one day while practicing the levitation when he went to Jerusalem (spiritually) he then got connected to GOD. HE admitted that and that is what prompted the first mosque in Jerusalem. If he didn’t spiritually visit Jerusalem hw would have missed the contact of GOD, BEING A SPIRITUAL PERSON Christianity has presented the Idea of GOD as well. Three (major) religions originating in different times and parts of the world are claiming about GOD which is far from being. So again that concludes that Buddhism is not wrong and it is not in contradiction with other religions. It is only limited to experiences of Buddha, who did not have complete exposure to the truth. But had good enough (exposure) to understand and device the method of the Nirvana for raising oneself above suffering permanently. P.S. Based on that I would like to correct my initial comparison of Nirvana with Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Nirvikalpa Samadhi produces Nirvana. BUT you can attain Nirvana without Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This was a subtle error in my last presentation of this point. The way one attains Nirvana without NirVikalpa Samadhi is through character purification like Buddha has preached. This will be good enough for not being born. But that does not end the world of discovery of Spiritual Cosmos. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is Attaining GOD which is Attaining Nirvana through attaining (oneness with) GOD. –Thanks Manish M
Response:
Correction: 1) Are they all same or different? I initially said that at the surface they sound DIFERENT. In principle they are all same.
-Thanks Manish M
Response:
Ok I need to clarify my initial stand on this argument.
Hi Manish: Thanks for the clarification on this argument.Within your clarification one can easily see the points set forth exactly from a Hindu point of view.Because, Shakyamuni did not accept any personal rebirth,as he has stated,–People can not accept the reality of death,they want to be alive forever,and for this reason,they have invented a projection of their life giving a name SOUL which will go on forever!– And for this he has rejected SOUL. Then how come now, Shakyamuni becomes in TRANS and sees his past lives and also his future lives?This for sure does not fit such and person as Gautama.These are such occult events that Shakyamuni always strongly rejected. And again Shakyamuni wanted from his followers not to worship his images at all.But one can easily find the other way around…All temples are full of Buddhas Images…His ideas and todays practices do not fit each other.Even it can easily be said that todays lamas even do not understand the essence of Buddhism very well.If no self,no attacment,no soul,then who is going to be reborn?Today this question can not be replied by many bikkuis and lamas.But a real Buddhist can easily find the reply of this question in PRAJNA PARAMITA of Arya Nagarjuna. And a real and close study might show that rebirth in Buddhism is not same as it is in Hinduism.Rebirth in Buddhism is not a personal one first of all.Neither Nirvana is a personal event.Unless to realise these delicate matters our ignorance might forward us on quite different directions. To understand NIRVANA and its meaning,interested people should study PRAJNA PARAMITA sutra,it has no relation with TANTRA at all.Without the explanation of Nagarjuna, Buddhism would have quite different meaning,closer to Hinduism, or Tantra or whatever you may call it. The secrets of Shakyamuni are that he never believed a personal rebirth and a personal nirvana. It was very nice discussion anyway,although we have not reached the same conclusion,the way your clarification and your stand shows a good example how an discussion should be. Thanking for your kind contributions regarding all the info given here by yourselve. With compassion, Puma – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are 2 main points in all the discussion related to this topic here 1) Are they all same or different? I initially said that at the surface they sound same. In principle they are all same. Hinduism is the oldest of all religions and all the things have been discovered by Hindus long before. That does not mean that (like puma has derived) As if you are saying that as jesus was an JEW his teachings were exactly same with the teachings of JEWS… This argument brings to point no 2 2) Why do the religions emerge and what creates a new religion. My answer again is that as religions get older they are influenced by 3 main things, contributions of next generation contributors (achievers), Prejudice of the followers, and cultural influence like language etc These influences partly do good to the religion like expanding its useful elements, and partly do bad to the religion, like producing confusingly similar/different doctrines/methods. Another problem these factors produce is they induce ritualistic practices like they way things should be done or wrongly imitating the way the original person did things etc. etc. Prejudice in short. This in general dilutes a religion because this creates multiple prophecies under one religion. Result is that it produces factions. Every religion is an example of this sociological transformation pattern. Look at Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and now even Buddhism. They all have factions. Ok so that probably has already given an idea of what I am going to say next. This produces a lot of chaos for any intellectual person who is himself trying to find truth. He adapts a new path. Does research or experiments or just follows the old path or whatever he/she can think of. And some of those people achieve the final truth/state. This becomes the starting of new religion. People began to see him as a successful rebellious. In reality he has only broken away from the social prejudice. All the other people who are not satisfied from the previous aging religion began to follow his/her path. And he becomes the new legend. This is how Christianity was born, this is how Islam was born, this is how Nanak’s prophecies came in existence (later became Sikhism) and this is how Buddhism was born. I did a detailed analysis of Buddhist philosophies and I was amazed to find how similar the Buddhist principles were (Dukkha, Karma, 8 principles for following, attachment/detachment, rebirth, Nirvana) with the Bhagwa Geeta, In first 5 or 6 chapters of Bhagwa Geeta everything what was said in Buddhism including (Karma, Sanyaas = detachment, aasakti = attachment, attachment with results & physical cravings = reasons of rebirth,) attainment of the permanent state Moksha (= Nirvana). In fact if you analyze the life of Buddha/Gautam you will see that he first attained the state of Trans (before Nirvana) in which he all his past lives and he saw how his acts made him take re-birth. That is what rally gave him enlightenment as he witnessed what causes re-birth. In Indian thousands of Sadhus have experienced exactly the same and in exactly the same circumstances. They enter the state of trance through the physical endurance over pain & stress for months, which is what Buddha went through too before trance. His attainment of Trance was not accidental or by chance. He sub-consciously was doing Tup which is physical endurance over pain and stress. Although he did not take a formal lesson from Hindu people but his hopeless determination of trying to attain success led him to one thing after another and finally to the extreme desperation as he gave up eating and then sustained endurance of the limits of his body. This is one of the very well known methods of attaining trance in Indian Sadhus. It is very logical in-fact, at that stage your physical mind/brain is so inert of that your physical consciousness is zero, and that is when you see and experience things that are purely spiritual. Now look at what Patanjali says about Yoga ("Yogah, Chitts Vritti Nirodhah"), yog is cessation of the activity of mind. If you go to northern India you will see those Sadhu people in hundreds roaming in Himalayas and other parts of India. I have personally met Sadhus who have lived months on just tree leaves, drank little water, and did nothing but meditation. People who have taken commitment of standing on just one leg for years (9 years). People who just stand in the cold waters of Ganga (river Ganges) for days. These are very tough and demanding techniques of attaining trance. And that is exactly what Buddha went through. These people have seen all those things mentioned by Buddha, past lives, future, even other psychic visions like seeing the world’s remote corners… you name it. What is described as Nirvana in Buddhism, which is the permanent state is defined in Yoga or Hinduism as Nirvikalpa Samadhi. If you read the descriptions of 2 they are exactly same. Having said that I do not recommend this approach to anyone (from my side). Meditation is much better. Now let’s talk about (Hindu) Tantra. Hindu Tantra says the aim is to expand the consciousness/mind & mind is transformable. For this purpose Hindus have already used all the things that the mind can sense. Like words (mantra), Smells (Dhuni), tactile sensations (Physical enduring), Meditation, Sex, Object and shapes for spiritual stimulations like visual patterns (Yantra)… you name it… Now how could any tantra be different? As long as it influences mental consciousness using anything which the mind can sense it will be the same Tantra. Conclusion : That is why I mentioned in one of my earlier post as a hint which most people did not get is that THERE IS 1 NATURE whose principle are the SAME for all of us and there is only 1 way you can attain Nirvana/Moksha. — Thanks Manish M Toronto/Canada
Response:
Ok I need to clarify my initial stand on this argument. There are 2 main points in all the discussion related to this topic here 1) Are they all same or different? I initially said that at the surface they sound same. In principle they are all same. Hinduism is the oldest of all religions and all the things have been discovered by Hindus long before. That does not mean that (like puma has derived)
Yes and no. Yes – there are many things are very similar in both. No – there are also major differences between them. One of the most foundamental difference is that there is no GOD in Buddhism. The notion of GOD is totally removed, We are all absolutely equal. Everyone can become a Buddha. If religion requires a GOD, then from this perspective, I do not consider Buddhism a religion. Best, Yuan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As if you are saying that as jesus was an JEW his teachings were exactly same with the teachings of JEWS… This argument brings to point no 2 2) Why do the religions emerge and what creates a new religion. My answer again is that as religions get older they are influenced by 3 main things, contributions of next generation contributors (achievers), Prejudice of the followers, and cultural influence like language etc These influences partly do good to the religion like expanding its useful elements, and partly do bad to the religion, like producing confusingly similar/different doctrines/methods. Another problem these factors produce is they induce ritualistic practices like they way things should be done or wrongly imitating the way the original person did things etc. etc. Prejudice in short. This in general dilutes a religion because this creates multiple prophecies under one religion. Result is that it produces factions. Every religion is an example of this sociological transformation pattern. Look at Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and now even Buddhism. They all have factions. Ok so that probably has already given an idea of what I am going to say next. This produces a lot of chaos for any intellectual person who is himself trying to find truth. He adapts a new path. Does research or experiments or just follows the old path or whatever he/she can think of. And some of those people achieve the final truth/state. This becomes the starting of new religion. People began to see him as a successful rebellious. In reality he has only broken away from the social prejudice. All the other people who are not satisfied from the previous aging religion began to follow his/her path. And he becomes the new legend. This is how Christianity was born, this is how Islam was born, this is how Nanak’s prophecies came in existence (later became Sikhism) and this is how Buddhism was born. I did a detailed analysis of Buddhist philosophies and I was amazed to find how similar the Buddhist principles were (Dukkha, Karma, 8 principles for following, attachment/detachment, rebirth, Nirvana) with the Bhagwa Geeta, In first 5 or 6 chapters of Bhagwa Geeta everything what was said in Buddhism including (Karma, Sanyaas = detachment, aasakti = attachment, attachment with results & physical cravings = reasons of rebirth,) attainment of the permanent state Moksha (= Nirvana). In fact if you analyze the life of Buddha/Gautam you will see that he first attained the state of Trans (before Nirvana) in which he all his past lives and he saw how his acts made him take re-birth. That is what rally gave him enlightenment as he witnessed what causes re-birth. In Indian thousands of Sadhus have experienced exactly the same and in exactly the same circumstances. They enter the state of trance through the physical endurance over pain & stress for months, which is what Buddha went through too before trance. His attainment of Trance was not accidental or by chance. He sub-consciously was doing Tup which is physical endurance over pain and stress. Although he did not take a formal lesson from Hindu people but his hopeless determination of trying to attain success led him to one thing after another and finally to the extreme desperation as he gave up eating and then sustained endurance of the limits of his body. This is one of the very well known methods of attaining trance in Indian Sadhus. It is very logical in-fact, at that stage your physical mind/brain is so inert of that your physical consciousness is zero, and that is when you see and experience things that are purely spiritual. Now look at what Patanjali says about Yoga ("Yogah, Chitts Vritti Nirodhah"), yog is cessation of the activity of mind. If you go to northern India you will see those Sadhu people in hundreds roaming in Himalayas and other parts of India. I have personally met Sadhus who have lived months on just tree leaves, drank little water, and did nothing but meditation. People who have taken commitment of standing on just one leg for years (9 years). People who just stand in the cold waters of Ganga (river Ganges) for days. These are very tough and demanding techniques of attaining trance. And that is exactly what Buddha went through. These people have seen all those things mentioned by Buddha, past lives, future, even other psychic visions like seeing the world’s remote corners… you name it. What is described as Nirvana in Buddhism, which is the permanent state is defined in Yoga or Hinduism as Nirvikalpa Samadhi. If you read the descriptions of 2 they are exactly same. Having said that I do not recommend this approach to anyone (from my side). Meditation is much better. Now let’s talk about (Hindu) Tantra. Hindu Tantra says the aim is to expand the consciousness/mind & mind is transformable. For this purpose Hindus have already used all the things that the mind can sense. Like words (mantra), Smells (Dhuni), tactile sensations (Physical enduring), Meditation, Sex, Object and shapes for spiritual stimulations like visual patterns (Yantra)… you name it… Now how could any tantra be different? As long as it influences mental consciousness using anything which the mind can sense it will be the same Tantra. Conclusion : That is why I mentioned in one of my earlier post as a hint which most people did not get is that THERE IS 1 NATURE whose principle are the SAME for all of us and there is only 1 way you can attain Nirvana/Moksha. — Thanks Manish M Toronto/Canada
Response:
Ok I need to clarify my initial stand on this argument. There are 2 main points in all the discussion related to this topic here 1) Are they all same or different? I initially said that at the surface they sound same. In principle they are all same. Hinduism is the oldest of all religions and all the things have been discovered by Hindus long before. That does not mean that (like puma has derived) As if you are saying that as jesus was an JEW his teachings were exactly same with the teachings of JEWS…
This argument brings to point no 2 2) Why do the religions emerge and what creates a new religion. My answer again is that as religions get older they are influenced by 3 main things, contributions of next generation contributors (achievers), Prejudice of the followers, and cultural influence like language etc These influences partly do good to the religion like expanding its useful elements, and partly do bad to the religion, like producing confusingly similar/different doctrines/methods. Another problem these factors produce is they induce ritualistic practices like they way things should be done or wrongly imitating the way the original person did things etc. etc. Prejudice in short. This in general dilutes a religion because this creates multiple prophecies under one religion. Result is that it produces factions. Every religion is an example of this sociological transformation pattern. Look at Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and now even Buddhism. They all have factions. Ok so that probably has already given an idea of what I am going to say next. This produces a lot of chaos for any intellectual person who is himself trying to find truth. He adapts a new path. Does research or experiments or just follows the old path or whatever he/she can think of. And some of those people achieve the final truth/state. This becomes the starting of new religion. People began to see him as a successful rebellious. In reality he has only broken away from the social prejudice. All the other people who are not satisfied from the previous aging religion began to follow his/her path. And he becomes the new legend. This is how Christianity was born, this is how Islam was born, this is how Nanak’s prophecies came in existence (later became Sikhism) and this is how Buddhism was born. I did a detailed analysis of Buddhist philosophies and I was amazed to find how similar the Buddhist principles were (Dukkha, Karma, 8 principles for following, attachment/detachment, rebirth, Nirvana) with the Bhagwa Geeta, In first 5 or 6 chapters of Bhagwa Geeta everything what was said in Buddhism including (Karma, Sanyaas = detachment, aasakti = attachment, attachment with results & physical cravings = reasons of rebirth,) attainment of the permanent state Moksha (= Nirvana). In fact if you analyze the life of Buddha/Gautam you will see that he first attained the state of Trans (before Nirvana) in which he all his past lives and he saw how his acts made him take re-birth. That is what rally gave him enlightenment as he witnessed what causes re-birth. In Indian thousands of Sadhus have experienced exactly the same and in exactly the same circumstances. They enter the state of trance through the physical endurance over pain & stress for months, which is what Buddha went through too before trance. His attainment of Trance was not accidental or by chance. He sub-consciously was doing Tup which is physical endurance over pain and stress. Although he did not take a formal lesson from Hindu people but his hopeless determination of trying to attain success led him to one thing after another and finally to the extreme desperation as he gave up eating and then sustained endurance of the limits of his body. This is one of the very well known methods of attaining trance in Indian Sadhus. It is very logical in-fact, at that stage your physical mind/brain is so inert of that your physical consciousness is zero, and that is when you see and experience things that are purely spiritual. Now look at what Patanjali says about Yoga ("Yogah, Chitts Vritti Nirodhah"), yog is cessation of the activity of mind. If you go to northern India you will see those Sadhu people in hundreds roaming in Himalayas and other parts of India. I have personally met Sadhus who have lived months on just tree leaves, drank little water, and did nothing but meditation. People who have taken commitment of standing on just one leg for years (9 years). People who just stand in the cold waters of Ganga (river Ganges) for days. These are very tough and demanding techniques of attaining trance. And that is exactly what Buddha went through. These people have seen all those things mentioned by Buddha, past lives, future, even other psychic visions like seeing the world’s remote corners… you name it. What is described as Nirvana in Buddhism, which is the permanent state is defined in Yoga or Hinduism as Nirvikalpa Samadhi. If you read the descriptions of 2 they are exactly same. Having said that I do not recommend this approach to anyone (from my side). Meditation is much better. Now let’s talk about (Hindu) Tantra. Hindu Tantra says the aim is to expand the consciousness/mind & mind is transformable. For this purpose Hindus have already used all the things that the mind can sense. Like words (mantra), Smells (Dhuni), tactile sensations (Physical enduring), Meditation, Sex, Object and shapes for spiritual stimulations like visual patterns (Yantra)… you name it… Now how could any tantra be different? As long as it influences mental consciousness using anything which the mind can sense it will be the same Tantra. Conclusion : That is why I mentioned in one of my earlier post as a hint which most people did not get is that THERE IS 1 NATURE whose principle are the SAME for all of us and there is only 1 way you can attain Nirvana/Moksha. — Thanks Manish M Toronto/Canada
Response:
Categories: Learn Yoga | 
No Comments »
Such togetherness! And one of my DD’s gave me two more Weight Watchers cook books. Thats all the OP stuff I got, but it should help a lot. Watch out Linda Hamilton, I gonna buff up in 2002! Anne Rudolph "Successful dragon slayers choose their dragons carefully" 162/133.6/125 http://home.covad.net/~arudolph/annes.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Roxan, that’s a great gift your husband gave you! I got spoiled by my family as usual but the one on-topic gift I got was a George Forman Grill!!!! I laughed when I opened it (has anyone else seen that commercial on tv where the sons give the mother one and she says <completely unenthusiastically "oh. a george forman grill….."?) but I’m quite excited – I quite often get sucked into the ad on tv and have wondered if it’s as good as the hype. I live alone and my mom bought me the tiny one (the "Champ"). I’m quite looking forward to trying it out – I live on boneless/skinless chicken breasts I buy frozen in bulk, so I think I may get some use out of it. I’ll have to restrain myself from throwing the Christmas leftovers on it, LOL. The other gifts I got (I’m a nerd) are more RAM for my pc, and Windows XP. I’ll be attempting to install both today….wish me luck – you may never Hope everyone had a good Christmas. I got a new gym membership from my husband. I am going tomorrow. This is a new gym, so I am leaving my old one to go here, I hope I like this one. So what did you get for Christmas? Roxan