--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote: > >> > >>>> I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) > >>>> Yoga, "With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, > >>>> simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the > >>>> eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent." MMY Gita > >>>> appendix under Yoga! > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great > >>> authority that "The Yogic Tradition" asserts such and such of these > >>> thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* > >>> into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a > >>> subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there > >>> can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. > >>> > >>> In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a > >>> "thought stopper". > >>> > >>> What, when you think about, IS "The Yoga Tradition" (singular)? > >> > >> > >> Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and > >> Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does > >> vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu > >> yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the "mechanics" of > >> it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the > >> prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for > >> hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' > >> > > > > And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from > > centuries ago across probably multiple languages? > > > > I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case > > for your view. > > Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's > worthless to do such a thing here any longer. > > Really this is a kind of "yoga 101" revelation, it should hardly be > surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of > basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I > base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by > a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the > same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. >
Fair enough. But you said some-such to someone (SpareEgg I think) as "You're position is wrong because you believe/do 'P' and "*THE YOGA TRADITION"* says/do 'Q'. Which sounds ever-so authoritative. If you had said "Q is better based on my experience and according to my teacher and his/her tradition", you would not have rattled my chains. But then you would not have made much of a point either.
