--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Trinity, > > > > Welcome back to krodha-dama. > > > > We get to hear claims here from time to time about lineages - > along > > with various references to yogic insider knowledge. Most of it is > > nothing but mere claims, usually based upon a favored explanation > given > > by some teacher who is rooted in a particular interpretation or > > philosophic view about yoga. > > > > Here, in this context, it appears quite funny - so we should all > have a > > good laugh, pass the bottle of bourbon and salute our foolish > > imaginations. > > > > The PatanjalaYogaSutra is clocked around 150-200 CE. Both the > Samkhya > > and Yoga darshanas were dealt with by Buddhist scholars, even as > late as > > Paramatha in China (6th Cent. CE). That is pretty much it because > > neither of these darshanas survived the intervening centuries down > to > > our era of time. > > > > "Did not survive" means no param-para, no sampradaya, no lineage, > no > > diksha, no transmission of secret techniques, no transmission of > hidden > > knowledge, and more importantly no person remaining to retain any > kind > > of lengthy or abridged explanations. > > > > Swami Hariharananda Aranya tried to revive this extinct lineage in > the > > 19th Century, CE by creating a SankhyaYoga Matha but it did not > survive > > either. > > > > Vedanta survived - in various forms and sampradayas. Vedantic > teachers > > read Patanjali and created their own interpretations of his > intended > > meaning, although almost always defering to and starting from > Vyasa's > > commentary. > > > > And Trinity you are quite correct. I posted Shankara's short > vivarana > > about siddhis in Card's thread about YS. III.37(38). He sees > siddhis as > > distractions but only for a yogin who wants to remain absorbed in > the > > vision of purusha. Even then there is no problem for one detached > in > > proper vairagya. > > > > empty > > > > > > How about siddhis being a touchstone of the depth(?) of samaadhi? > > dharma-megha-samaadhi is possible to "reach" only > if one is 'akusiida' even in 'prasaMkhyaana', > > prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater > dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29) > > Perhaps 'prasaMkhyaana' means, amongst other things, > that one is capable of "performing" siddhis, if one > so wishes (is 'kusiida', *not* 'a-kusiida'??).
Prasankhyana is the dicrimination between purusha and prakriti, it is also a source of the name of the Sankhya system (a prerequisite for the yoga-sutra).
