--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wmurphy77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wmurphy77 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > snip> > > > > >> There were pranayamas given in Seelisburg that related to > the > > third > > > > >> eye. The TM puja refers to the opening of the ajna. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the second last (KS) Shiva-suutra is about > > saMyama > > > > > on the aajñaa[=command?]-cakra (from memory: naasikaantar- > > madhya- > > > > > saMyamaat kim atra savyaapasavya-sauSamneSu). Perhaps that > means > > > > > that kuNDalinii-yoga -practises are needless when one does > > saMyama > > > > > on "naasika_antar-madhya". > > > > > > > > > > > > It's talking about maintaining awareness regardless of what > > channel > > > > prana is flowing in. > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this....also, where in the puja does it > talk > > > about the ajna? > > > > > > > ANd where is it made clear that one spiritual tradition has to have > a > > 1-to-1 correspondance with another for either to be correct? The > > history of Sanskrit texts covers literally thousands of years, with > > multiple meanings for many words for a given text written during > one > > period that may not be coherent with the meaning intended for them > > when used in another text written in another era. > > > > And that doesn't mean that MMY's interpretation of things is wrong, > > regardless of what was meant consciously by one author, since the > > point of MMY's interpreation of texts is to promote and explain > > enlightment techniques of a certain kind, so if the techniques work > > and the itnerpreation is valid within the context of the techniques > > he promotes, the author's conscious intent may not be as big a deal > > as you appear to be insisting by all this textual exegisis stuff. > > > > IOW, MMY's silence on such things may mean nothing more than he > > disagrees with the whole thing, or perhaps with the standard > > interpretation of such things. He talks about Marmas which almost > no- > > one does, while generally NOT talking about kundalini or chakras, > > which virtually everyone DOES talk about. Does this make him wrong > > and everyone else right, or is it the other way around or what? > > Hey, that's fine with me, I'm just trying to get some clarity on this > issue, it does seem to me, these principle are *fundamental* to YOGA, > how can they possibly be overlooked? BillyG. > > >
How fundamental are they do the yoga that MMY apparently believes in. What mention is there of awakening chakras or kundalini in Patanjali, very little, if any, IIRC. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
