Bija Mantra v.9.1
Your name
Thread: Bija Mantra v.9.1
Subject: An intelligent way to realization.
Author: willytex
Date: 05/30/2001
> Petrus wrote
> Shyam & Shyama are reported to mean Krisna.
>
Petrock - There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons; no bija
mantras in Rig Veda; and Shyam is not the name of Krishna. And why?
1. In fact, according to the Hindu Tantras, these meaningless sounds are
not even bija mantras until given in diksha, that is, initiation, by one
guru to one chela. In this case, you, the Petrock, merely read this phrase
on the Internet or a newsgroup. Therefore, this phrase is not even known to
be a phrase used at camp-meets, anywhere, India or no, for you to be
overhearing.
2. The Lord already has a name, i.e. Krishna, which is, in itself a
nickname, meaning the dark lord. By your logic, Krishna would then be
called 'dark, dark' which is clearly redundant, very unsubtle, and gross,
and is a phrase not supported in the Hindu Tantras.
3. Maharishi was speaking in Hindi when the text of the book 'Beacon Light
of the Himalayas' was recorded, and the phrases that you quote have been
translated into English. There are many Hindi and Sanskrit words that
cannot be translated, such as deva, dharma, mantra, veda, etc. This being
so, and the fact that you, the Petrock, cannot read Hindi, Sanskrit,
Prakrit, Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, it would behoove the Petrock to not rely
so much on hearsay.
4. The nickname of Krishna is in fact Gopichandra, as written in Srimad
Bhagwatam, and this nickname is not a bija-mantra listed in any Tantra.
Trancenet is not a good source for to be learning about bija mantras.
Definition of bija mantra:
1. A morpheme or quasi morpheme, or a phoneme, or quasi phoneme, or a
series of mixed morphemes, phoneme, qausi morphemes, or quasi phoneme,
arranged in traditional patterns, which are imparted by one guru to one
chela in the course of diksha, in which a meaningless sound is taken as a
non-ideational mnemonic device, utilized as effortlessly as any other
thought.
Purpose of bija mantra:
1. A mental thought tool for transcending the relative limitations of
physical change and causality by means of individual human will-power. 2. A
way to experience a state of conciousness in which cognition is isolated
in it's state of least excitation. 3. A practice which is ideally suited to
intelligent aspiriants of self-culture in the age of Kali Yuga. 4. The
*perfect* means for busy householders to experience unity conciousness in
this lifetime.
Walla Note:
According to mythology the Devas and Bodhisatvas do not take kindly to
being addressed by their real names, which are seldom known by ordinary
people. Apparently, some fakirs of old thought they were familiar, and knew
the Gods well enough that they could even use nicknames! This is very
offensive to the Gods, according to this Walla's researches, and confusing
to the people who cannot understand foreign languages. In fact, the Supreme
God, that is, the God of Yoga, Ishvara, does not even have a name, and is
refered to by the pranava, because Ishvara, that is Sri Buddha, a yogi
archetype, being formless, no name could encompass such non-dualism.
Apparently, some uninformed dillatante types once overheard some of these
so-called secret names being chanted in Sanskrit at a drum-bangin' camp-
meet, amd mistook these for the real first names of the Gods. This, in
itself is offensive, as it implies a hierarchy of those who pretend to know
the secret names, those who wanna know the names, and those who do not know
any names, which is not supported by this Walla.
In fact, the bija mantras were first invented by the Eighty-four
Mahasiddhas specificaly as meaningless sounds to be focusing on for yoga
meditation practice. If bija mantras were to be used to address the Gods in
secret or public ritual praise, Sage Patanjali would have said so in the
195 aphorisms, would he not?
Petrus
"Your name" <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RujR6.193629$sP6.10...@news3.aus1.giganews.com...
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Bija Mantra v.9.1
> Subject: An intelligent way to realization.
> Author: willytex
> Date: 05/30/2001
>
> > Petrus wrote
> > Shyam & Shyama are reported to mean Krisna.
> >
>
> Petrock - There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons;
Are you calling EKI a liar?
He wrote:
"In article <9eq710$oei$1...@tron.sci.fi>, eki...@dwp.net heittää läppää
seuraavasti:
>
>In article <B735B60E.305D9%engl...@mindspring.com>,
engl...@mindspring.com hei
>ttää läppää
>seuraavasti:
>>
>>
>>A mantra isn't a *word*, it is a pronounceable sound.
>>
>>
>
>There's is one mantra in the minet.org list that I can
>find in my Skrt dictionary, namely (rot-13 -ed):
>
>fulzn
>
Sorry, made a typo, should have been:
fulnzn"
That is shyama
willytex
Thread: Bija Mantra v.9.1
Author: willytex
Date: 06/04/2001
> Willytex wrote
> There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons;
> no bija mantras in Rig Veda.
>
>> Eki wrote
>> There's is one mantra in the minet.org list that I can
>> find in my Skrt dictionary: fulzn. Sorry, made a typo,
>> should have been: fulnzn.
>>
>>> Willytex wrote
>>> There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons;
>>> no bija mantras in Rig Veda.
>>>
>>>> Petrus wrote
>>>> Are you calling EKI a liar?
Petrus - You idoit! You just spammed on yourself in public, again, big time,
this time!
You expect this Walla to believe that a meaningless sound, that is not
enunciated vocally, i.e. a THOUGHT, is really a pronounced word that has a
Sanskrit non-word that is a seed of that word [sic] in Sanskrit posted by
some anonymous person with an unpronouncable name, "eki", a self-admitted
kwiter and self-pulse reader, who claims some kind of finish status, an
informer who habitually posts on newsgroups, who admittedly reads a kooky
webpage minit.org on the Internet, who posted that he (?) found ONE word in
an on-line dictionary (?) that means Krishna, itself a nickname, and made a
typo in posting same? This is your evidence that bija mantras are words of
power?
O.K. Now that this Walla knows what kind of logic he is really dealing with,
just show him ONE bija mantra in ANY Hindu scripture, Sanskrit, Prakrit,
Hindi or Urdu. Just ONE.
Petrus
"willytex" <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfVS6.221441$sP6.12...@news3.aus1.giganews.com...
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Bija Mantra v.9.1
> Subject: No bija mantras in Rig Veda.
> Author: willytex
> Date: 06/04/2001
>
> > Willytex wrote
> > There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons;
> > no bija mantras in Rig Veda.
> >
> >> Eki wrote
> >> There's is one mantra in the minet.org list that I can
> >> find in my Skrt dictionary: fulzn. Sorry, made a typo,
> >> should have been: fulnzn.
> >>
> >>> Willytex wrote
> >>> There are no bija mantras in standard Sanskrit Lexicons;
> >>> no bija mantras in Rig Veda.
> >>>
> >>>> Petrus wrote
> >>>> Are you calling EKI a liar?
>
> Petrus - You idoit! You just spammed on yourself in public, again, big
time,
> this time!
You know I asked you for your definition of spam several times.
>
> You expect this Walla to believe that a meaningless sound, that is not
> enunciated vocally, i.e. a THOUGHT, is really a pronounced word that has a
> Sanskrit non-word that is a seed of that word [sic] in Sanskrit posted by
> some anonymous person with an unpronouncable name, "eki", a self-admitted
> kwiter and self-pulse reader, who claims some kind of finish status, an
> informer who habitually posts on newsgroups, who admittedly reads a kooky
> webpage minit.org on the Internet, who posted that he (?) found ONE word
in
> an on-line dictionary (?) that means Krishna, itself a nickname, and made
a
> typo in posting same? This is your evidence that bija mantras are words of
> power?
So you *are* calling him a liar.
>
> O.K. Now that this Walla knows what kind of logic he is really dealing
with,
> just show him ONE bija mantra in ANY Hindu scripture, Sanskrit, Prakrit,
> Hindi or Urdu. Just ONE.
>
Plus you are going off on a rabbit trail here. I had already mentioned that
a word which has meaning does not necessarily need to be found in a
dictionary. ough.
As your post of a while back pointed out it is intellect that assigned
meaning to a sound / word.
and you are aware of the meaning that MMY gave to the mantra:
"For training the mind through sound we can take any word. Even the word
"mike" can be taken. By reducing the sound of the word "mike" to its subtler
and still subtler stages and allowing the mind to go on experiencing all the
stages one by one, the mind can be trained to be so sharp as to enter into
the subtlest stage of the sound 'mike', transcend ing which it will
automatically get into the realm of Sat-Chidanandam and experience it. Thus
we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become
sharp. But we do not select the sound at random, We do not select any sound
like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such ordinary sounds can
do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some
special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations
whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the
scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice,
we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to
us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. "
MMY
http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#27
You have the option to believe MMY or to question his intellect.
>
>