[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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'??).
kusIda mfn. (fr. 1. %{ku} and %{sad}? ; cf. %{kuSIda}) , lazy ,
inert (?) TS. vii ; (%{am}) n. any loan or thing lent to be repaid
with interest , lending money upon interest , usury TS. iii Gobh.
Gaut. Pa1n2. c. ; red sandal wood L. ; (%{as} , %{A}) mf. a money-
lender , usurer L.
akusIda or %{akuzIda} mfn. taking no interest or usury , without
gain.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
Hi Bill: I'm not sure what to make of your infrequent posts here to FFL, so often filled with bile and now, misinformation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Of course this may be how it appears to someone who learned from a book. The reality however is quite different. For example I can tell you Vajranaths master in the yoga sutras come from a long oral lineage. The cave they were initated in records the oral tradition of that line for over 700 years! And thats just in this one place. 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. Ah, more misinformation. First of all, Swami Hariharananda Aranya did not TRY to revive the lineage (from extant oral traditions), he did so. That was not in the 19th century but the 20th century. And not only DID that survive, it is now in its fourth generation and thriving. Wow, you got every point wrong Bill. Impressive! The Patanjali tradition is an ancient oral tradition which continues up to the present day, but it is very rare. Often it seems traditions have become extinct when in fact they submerge and reemerge, often beyond the eyes of the scholars and the masses. 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. But of course the initial point was cultivation of siddhis is opposite of vairagya so therefore the inital point remains, as the oral tradition tells us. Kala Devi
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- 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).
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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).
Perhaps, but in my understanding, from the linguistic POV, the
word 'saaMkhya' (with a long a-sound in the first syllable, which,
I believe, makes it a vRddhi-derivative) is derived from 'saMkhya',
one of whose meanings seems to be 'number'.
3 saMkhyA f. reckoning or summing up , numeration , calculation
(ifc. = ` numbered or reckoned among ') R. Ragh. Ra1jat. ; a
number , sum , total (ifc. ` amounting to ') S3Br. c. c. ; a
numeral Pra1t. Pa1n2. c. ; (in gram.) number (as expressed by case
terminations or personal tñterminations) Ka1s3. on Pa1n2. 2-3 , 1 ;
deliberation , reasoning , reflection , reason , intellect MBh.
Ka1v. ; name , appellation (= %{AkhyA}) R. ; a partic. high number
Buddh. ; manner MW. ; (in geom.) a gnomon (for ascertaining the
points of the compass) , Ra1mRa1s.
4 sAMkhya mfn. (fr. %{saM-khyA}) numeral , relating to number W. ;
relating to number (in gram as expressed by the case-terminations
c.) Pat. ; rational , or discriminative W. ; m.one who calculates
or discriminates well , (esp.) an adherent of the Sa1m2khya doctrine
Cu1lUp. MBh. c. ; N. of a man Car. ; patr. of the Vedic R2ishi Atri
Anukr. ; N. of S3iva MBh. ; n. (accord. to some also m.) N. of one
of the three great divisions of Hindu1 philosophy (ascribed to the
sage Kapila [q.v.] , and so called either from , discriminating ' ,
in general , or , more probably , from ` reckoning up ' or `
enumerating ' twenty-five Tattvas [see %{tattva}] or true entities
[twenty-three of which are evolved out of Prakr2iti ` the
primordial Essence ' or ` first-Producer ' , viz. Buddhi ,
Aham2ka1ra , the five Tan-ma1tras , the five Maha1-bhu1tas and
Manas ; the twenty-fifth being Purusha or Spirit [sometimes called
Soul] which is neither a Producer nor Production [see %{vikAra}] ,
but wholly distinct from the twenty-four other Tattvas. and is
multitudinous , each separate Purusha by its union with Prakr2iti
causing a separate creation out of Prakr2iti , the object of the
philosophy being to effect the final liberation of the Purusha or
Spirit from the fetters caused by that creation ; the Yoga [q.v.]
branch of the Saqikhya recognizes a Supreme Spirit dominating each
separate Purusha ; the Tantras identify Prakr2iti with the wives of
the gods , esp. with the wife of S3iva ; the oldest systematic
exposition of the SñSa1m2khya seems to have been by an author called
Pan5ca-s3ikha [the germ , however , being found in the Shasht2i-
tantra , of which only scanty fragments are extant] ; the original
Su1tras were superseded by the SñSa1m2khya-ka1rika1 of I1s3vara-
kr2ishn2a , the oldest manual on the SñSa1m2khya system that has
come down to us and probably written in the 5th century A.D. , while
the SñSa1m2khya-su1tras or SñS3iva-pravacana and Tattva-sama1sa ,
ascribed to the sage Kapila , are now thought to belong to as late a
date as the 14th or 15th century or perhaps a little later) S3vetUp.
MBh. c. IW. 73 c. RTL.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4)
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis!
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis! Please see the reference in verse 22: PYS 3.1.4 This is the Chapter followed by the explanation how siddhis are developed through Samyama. It is Vaj ignoring the context here.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis! Please see the reference in verse 22: PYS 3.1.4 This is the Chapter followed by the explanation how siddhis are developed through Samyama. It is Vaj ignoring the context here. I'll have to ask him later as I only have one post left for the day. IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context. Your naivete is showing. Dangerously so.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll have to ask him later as I only have one post left for the day. IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context. No Madhusudanas text doesn't, but expicitely refers to PYS 3.1.4 Following is the description of samyama in relation to siddhis. There is also no doubt if you read Vyasas commentary of 3.1.6 where Siddhis are explicitely mentioned in the application of samyama. It is said that the lower stages have to be practiced before the higher. 'Reading of others minds' is mentioned as a lower level in the same commentary (as an example). So, i am simply following the scriptures, and references as they are being made. You are just dodging around interweaved with threats. Your naivete is showing. Dangerously so. What about some yamas first? Eg the abondenment of krodha. Then talk of higher practices
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
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 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context.
