On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:00 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) > > the "Yogi" suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly > > accorded a Hatha Yogi? > > Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga-darshana > (which includes hatha-yoga). > > > Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi > > although no account I've read says anything about > > whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. > > When I say "yogi" I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha- > yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. However, oddly enough, that's exactly what you did in the post Marek is responding to. No wonder you snipped it from your reply: "The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. "I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form)."
No, once again you're missing the point through over-specification of language.
An expert in yoga-darshana would almost certainly know the asanas since they parallel the inner practices (of yoga-darshana). In other words the outer asanas are a subset of the overall practices of yoga- darshana. Therefore it would be highly unusual for someone making a claim of being a yogi to not know them and have to rely on a gym teacher. One is forced to conclude that the Shankaracharya who stated that Mahesh was not a yogi was speaking the truth (if one is logical, objective and has some familiarity with the tradition).
If you aren't familiar with the tradition, it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes.
