[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > If you read MMY's Bhagavad Gita Appendix on Yoga you will find this > > comment, quote: "With the continuous practice of all these limbs, or > > means, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all > > the eight spheres of life" MMY HB pg363 > > > > > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > > in their effectiveness. > > > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > > > > IMO, this whole mess boils down to this: > > ONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO (at least "almost") BRING ABOUT THE FOURTH > (praaNaayaama),in order to be able to "perform"(or whatever) /saMyama/. > > YS II 51 - 53: > > baahyaabhyantara-viSayaakSepii caturthaH. > > tataH kSiiyate prakaashaavaraNam. > > *** dhaaraNaasu ca yogyataa manasaH *** > > END OF DISCUSSION! ;D > And as I've pointed out many times, the "fourth" [pranayaman] to me implies the spontaneous breath suspension seen in some people during TC during TM. Whatevah. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > If you read MMY's Bhagavad Gita Appendix on Yoga you will find this > comment, quote: "With the continuous practice of all these limbs, or > means, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all > the eight spheres of life" MMY HB pg363 > > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > in their effectiveness. > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > IMO, this whole mess boils down to this: ONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO (at least "almost") BRING ABOUT THE FOURTH (praaNaayaama),in order to be able to "perform"(or whatever) /saMyama/. YS II 51 - 53: baahyaabhyantara-viSayaakSepii caturthaH. tataH kSiiyate prakaashaavaraNam. *** dhaaraNaasu ca yogyataa manasaH *** END OF DISCUSSION! ;D
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > > > > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings > > > > > that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* > > > > > with your Religion? He didn't > > > > > > > > He *did*. Why do you think he made such a point > > > > of TM being compatible with all religions?? > > > > > > Judy, if you can tell me where in MMY's *formal > > > teachings*, the saying that TM should be practiced > > > in conjunction with your Religion, I will never > > > post on this subject again! And quietly disappear:-) > > > > The whole section "Fulfillment of Religion" in Science of > > Being and Art of Living, especially the last four > > paragraphs. > > > > Bye-bye. > > Sorry but he doesn't make the argument that TM should > be practiced in conjuction with your Religion, he > suggests if you are Religious TM will be cool with > your Religion (that is, after you realize how stupid > it is)! Read it again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
Vaj wrote: > Where does he get this stuff? > > "If the prerequisites [limbs] of samadhi > are not met..." - Shantideva. > You got all mixed up again, Shantideva was a Buddhist scholar, famous at Nalanda. Apparently Shantideva didn't have anything to say about Patanjali's 'samadhi', which Shantideva probably diasproved of, seeing as how Patanjali was a pluralist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings > > > > that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* > > > > with your Religion? He didn't > > > > > > He *did*. Why do you think he made such a point > > > of TM being compatible with all religions?? > > > > Judy, if you can tell me where in MMY's *formal > > teachings*, the saying that TM should be practiced > > in conjunction with your Religion, I will never > > post on this subject again! And quietly disappear:-) > > The whole section "Fulfillment of Religion" in Science of > Being and Art of Living, especially the last four > paragraphs. > > Bye-bye. Sorry but he doesn't make the argument that TM should be practiced in conjuction with your Religion, he suggests if you are Religious TM will be cool with your Religion (that is, after you realize how stupid it is)! You see after you practice TM you will *see the errors of your ways*, that is what he is saying. He is not saying TM is consistent with the idea that, unless you believe in Jesus you are eternally damned, this is entirely inconsistent with the practice and teachings of TM, in any fashion! Religions are in basic ignorance of the essential reality of life, TM is not consistent with ignorance. He doesn't make any such comment, sorry but I'll have to continue harassing you!
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > I think MMY made it clear that he felt that TM was the missing > element in > > EVERY culture. One already had exercise, spiritual/religious guidelines > > /worship, etc, but not TM. > > > > So why reinvent the other wheels? > > > > > > L. > > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings that TM was meant > to be practiced *in conjunction* with your Religion? He didn't, and > as a result many practice TM *in lieu of* Religion, this is a big > mistake IMO as Religion is the outer guide in life, not some > pseudo-Scientific, pseudo-Religious practice as TM is taught today! > > TM is the essence of the "eternal Religion of the Vedas", MMY. Even > Charlie ask him why he didn't tell them that Religion is the most > direct way to Self Realization. TM is more effective if you practice > all 8 limbs, that's why they're there... > "PRactice the religion you learned at your mother's knee" seems like he did.. Except, of course telling people to practice a religion for sure, would turn away the atheists/agnostics. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings > > > that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* > > > with your Religion? He didn't > > > > He *did*. Why do you think he made such a point > > of TM being compatible with all religions?? > > Judy, if you can tell me where in MMY's *formal > teachings*, the saying that TM should be practiced > in conjunction with your Religion, I will never > post on this subject again! And quietly disappear:-) The whole section "Fulfillment of Religion" in Science of Being and Art of Living, especially the last four paragraphs. Bye-bye.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings > > that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* > > with your Religion? He didn't > > He *did*. Why do you think he made such a point > of TM being compatible with all religions?? Judy, if you can tell me where in MMY's *formal teachings*, the saying that TM should be practiced in conjunction with your Religion, I will never post on this subject again! And quietly disappear:-) First of all, TM is NOT compatible with all religions! If you truly practice Catholicism, the Pope has recommended NOT practicing TM and called it a "cult of the Body"...previous Pope. You could say well, "in truth it is", and that may be true, but that doesn't translate into practicing your Religion in the context it's being taught, faithfully, today; ultimately you find your Religion is full of errors and flee! P.S. Making a comment in a lecture 40 years ago does NOT constitute a formal teaching!! FYI Also-> How do you explain MMY's term in the Gita, *means* for describing the limbs of Patanjali's Yoga?
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings > that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* > with your Religion? He didn't He *did*. Why do you think he made such a point of TM being compatible with all religions??
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > > > --True origin of the 8 limbs of Yoga: > > http://tegehel.deviantart.com/art/Birth-of-Cthulhu-62464392 > > > > > > FWIW, one yoga-upanishad (yoga-chuuDaamaNi) mentions only six (shat) > an.gas (ang-gas): > > aasanaM praaNasa.nrodhaH pratyaahaarashcha dhaaraNaa . > dhyaana.n samaadhiretaani yogaa~Ngaani bhavanti shhaT.h .. 2.. > > Simplified (Harvard-Kyoto'ish transliteration): > > aasanaM praaNasaMrodhaH pratyaahaarash ca dhaaraNaa . > dhyaanaM samaadhir etaani yoga-angaani bhavanti SaT (shat) .. 2.. aasana, praaNasaMrodha and pratyaahaara, dhaaraNaa, dhyaana (and) samaadhi, these (etaani) are (bhavanti) the *six* (SaT) limbs of yoga (yoga-aGgaani) > > Seems to ignore yama and niyama... > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/yogachud.itx >
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > I think MMY made it clear that he felt that TM was the missing element in > EVERY culture. One already had exercise, spiritual/religious guidelines > /worship, etc, but not TM. > > So why reinvent the other wheels? > > > L. So why didn't MMY recommend in his formal teachings that TM was meant to be practiced *in conjunction* with your Religion? He didn't, and as a result many practice TM *in lieu of* Religion, this is a big mistake IMO as Religion is the outer guide in life, not some pseudo-Scientific, pseudo-Religious practice as TM is taught today! TM is the essence of the "eternal Religion of the Vedas", MMY. Even Charlie ask him why he didn't tell them that Religion is the most direct way to Self Realization. TM is more effective if you practice all 8 limbs, that's why they're there...
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" wrote: > I always thought that he meant that, yes, practise of any of the 8 > limbs leads to enlightenment but the 8th limb -- samadhi -- is the > one to go to first. And by practising TM, you get the benefit of > simultaneous practise of all 8 limbs. Actually, if you can *actually go into Samadhi* then the object of Yoga is fulfilled, the other limbs are designed to help you do just that! And it's true that Samyama or the 6th, 7th and 8th limbs alone will lead you to Yoga but without the first 5 it will take you longer, and maybe a lot longer! > > Now, whether that prescription works or not, I cannot say because I > am neither yet enlightened nor a Vedic scholar. > > But it does make sense to me, that capturing the fort first thing. > > You know, I practise hatha yoga (more than just the set we're taught > as part of the TM rounding program). To do JUST hatha yoga, for me, > would not be a very effective way to go to enlightenment. But I > cannot imagine NOT doing it. I think it's value is to smooth out the > stress release (the karma-burning) that is the result of the TM > practise. > > But there are people I run into that wholeheartedly believe that > hatha yoga is a path unto itself. Well, who am I to tell them it > isn't? But it isn't for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > --True origin of the 8 limbs of Yoga: > http://tegehel.deviantart.com/art/Birth-of-Cthulhu-62464392 > > FWIW, one yoga-upanishad (yoga-chuuDaamaNi) mentions only six (shat) an.gas (ang-gas): aasanaM praaNasa.nrodhaH pratyaahaarashcha dhaaraNaa . dhyaana.n samaadhiretaani yogaa~Ngaani bhavanti shhaT.h .. 2.. Simplified (Harvard-Kyoto'ish transliteration): aasanaM praaNasaMrodhaH pratyaahaarash ca dhaaraNaa . dhyaanaM samaadhir etaani yoga-angaani bhavanti SaT (shat) .. 2.. Seems to ignore yama and niyama... http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/yogachud.itx
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:07 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > But it does make sense to me, that capturing the fort first thing. > > You know, I practise hatha yoga (more than just the set we're taught > as part of the TM rounding program). To do JUST hatha yoga, for me, > would not be a very effective way to go to enlightenment. But I > cannot imagine NOT doing it. I think it's value is to smooth out the > stress release (the karma-burning) that is the result of the TM > practise. > > But there are people I run into that wholeheartedly believe that > hatha yoga is a path unto itself. Well, who am I to tell them it > isn't? But it isn't for me. > It takes a very dedicated person to /really/ practice hatha. IRRC that includes nadi pots and drinking last night's void instead of orange juice. Well, it's got to be better than the tea they serve at Annapura.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > If you read MMY's Bhagavad Gita Appendix on Yoga you will find this > comment, quote: "With the continuous practice of all these limbs, or > means, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all > the eight spheres of life" MMY HB pg363 > > Notice he uses the term *means*, this is very significant as he is > suggesting here that each limb is a method in and of itself (as > recommended by Maharishi Patanjali) to gain the state of Yoga. I always thought that he meant that, yes, practise of any of the 8 limbs leads to enlightenment but the 8th limb -- samadhi -- is the one to go to first. And by practising TM, you get the benefit of simultaneous practise of all 8 limbs. Now, whether that prescription works or not, I cannot say because I am neither yet enlightened nor a Vedic scholar. But it does make sense to me, that capturing the fort first thing. You know, I practise hatha yoga (more than just the set we're taught as part of the TM rounding program). To do JUST hatha yoga, for me, would not be a very effective way to go to enlightenment. But I cannot imagine NOT doing it. I think it's value is to smooth out the stress release (the karma-burning) that is the result of the TM practise. But there are people I run into that wholeheartedly believe that hatha yoga is a path unto itself. Well, who am I to tell them it isn't? But it isn't for me. > > I think this proves that TM, as taught today, is *Yoga-lite for > modernity*, in spite of his later remarks where he sugar-coated, IMO, > what he was teaching, saying only samyama or TM was necessary. > > I think MMY kind of felt the ends justified the means, and teaching a > little Yoga in a simple manner would be more popular than teaching the > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > in their effectiveness. > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > If you read MMY's Bhagavad Gita Appendix on Yoga you will find this > comment, quote: "With the continuous practice of all these limbs, or > means, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all > the eight spheres of life" MMY HB pg363 > > Notice he uses the term *means*, this is very significant as he is > suggesting here that each limb is a method in and of itself (as > recommended by Maharishi Patanjali) to gain the state of Yoga. > > I think this proves that TM, as taught today, is *Yoga-lite for > modernity*, in spite of his later remarks where he sugar-coated, IMO, > what he was teaching, saying only samyama or TM was necessary. > > I think MMY kind of felt the ends justified the means, and teaching a > little Yoga in a simple manner would be more popular than teaching the > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > in their effectiveness. > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > I think MMY made it clear that he felt that TM was the missing element in EVERY culture. One already had exercise, spiritual/religious guidelines /worship, etc, but not TM. So why reinvent the other wheels? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--True origin of the 8 limbs of Yoga: http://tegehel.deviantart.com/art/Birth-of-Cthulhu-62464392 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2009, at 8:25 PM, Fairfield Lifer wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM, BillyG. wrote: > >> I think MMY kind of felt the ends justified the means, and teaching a > >> little Yoga in a simple manner would be more popular than teaching > >> the > >> complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > >> adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > >> in their effectiveness. > >> > >> Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs > >> (or > >> means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > > > > Is this groundhog day or deja vu all over again? > > > > Maharishi stated very clearly in a Humboldt tape which was a favorite > > residence course tape, which got repackaged with the MERU swan, > > Packabel and the haughty announcement of "Courses for Citizens of the > > Age of Enlightenment" that there had been a misinterpretation of > > Patanjali, that there was an 8 fold path (actually 8 limbs to the > > tree), and that the limbs weren't to be followed one at a time until > > you got them all mastered. Mastering one (he used 3 different > > branches as examples) gets you mastery of all. Pull one leg of a > > table and the other legs come with it. > > > > So whom are you going to believe? Maharishi or Maharishi? > > > Can't we just believe ole Patanjali and his tradition of realizers?... > and close the door on the Vedic salesman trying to sell us something? > > Of course if you say "no" to the above I'd like to tell you about by > my skip-the-limbs Quantum technique (STLQT™). Using the power of the > unified field and formulas easily explained by a defrocked world- > famous Quantum Physicist, Norman Einstein, there's no need to follow > meditation step-by-step. You can skip how ever many steps you so > desire, and be absorbed in imperturbable samadhi in no time. You'll > even be fully enlightened in 2-5 years, depending of course on your > karma and your genetic ancestors behavioral habits. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Fairfield Lifer wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > I think MMY kind of felt the ends justified the means, and teaching a > > little Yoga in a simple manner would be more popular than teaching the > > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > > in their effectiveness. > > > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > > Is this groundhog day or deja vu all over again? > > Maharishi stated very clearly in a Humboldt tape which was a favorite > residence course tape, which got repackaged with the MERU swan, > Packabel and the haughty announcement of "Courses for Citizens of the > Age of Enlightenment" that there had been a misinterpretation of > Patanjali, that there was an 8 fold path (actually 8 limbs to the > tree), and that the limbs weren't to be followed one at a time until > you got them all mastered. Mastering one (he used 3 different > branches as examples) gets you mastery of all. Pull one leg of a > table and the other legs come with it. > > So whom are you going to believe? Maharishi or Maharishi? I believe Maharishi #1, that is when he said you must practice all 8 *means* of Patanjali's limbs, he spoke the unvarnished truth. Will the real Maharishi please stand up?hum, hum. Yes, it's MMY #1. Now you see why MMY will always be an enigma!
[FairfieldLife] Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs or *means* must be practiced-MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2009, at 7:55 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > If you read MMY's Bhagavad Gita Appendix on Yoga you will find this > > comment, quote: "With the continuous practice of all these limbs, or > > means, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all > > the eight spheres of life" MMY HB pg363 > > > > Notice he uses the term *means*, this is very significant as he is > > suggesting here that each limb is a method in and of itself (as > > recommended by Maharishi Patanjali) to gain the state of Yoga. > > > > I think this proves that TM, as taught today, is *Yoga-lite for > > modernity*, in spite of his later remarks where he sugar-coated, IMO, > > what he was teaching, saying only samyama or TM was necessary. > > > > I think MMY kind of felt the ends justified the means, and teaching a > > little Yoga in a simple manner would be more popular than teaching the > > complete Yoga as defined by Maharishi Patanjali. Unfortunately, this > > adulterated Patanjali's teachings and left them somewhat diminished > > in their effectiveness. > > > > Perhaps MMY thought he could incorporate the other important limbs (or > > means) later when people would be more receptive...who knows? > > > Yet another clueless comment from the Maharishi. Where does he get > this stuff? > > Hint: when it goes against the recommendation of every enlightened > commentator AND modern developmental understanding, it probably means > Mahesh is trying to sell something. I always find it funny how many > third-of-the-gita readers remember this particular quote, myself > included. It seemed compelling, almost true: 'buy my product, it's the > fastest and bestest. You don't need to be a good person or behave > well, buy my mantras and the goddess is just waiting to conjoin with > your consciousness.' > > "If the prerequisites [limbs] of samadhi are not met, even if you > meditate hundreds of years you'll never attain samadhi." -Shantideva. > Of course the Patanjali and the yoga tradition teaches the same thing. > Good teachers will explain why this is the case, so it interesting > when someone tries to sell you "the shortcut" for a buck. What most > don't get is, they're being sold is short. After so many decades, > you'd think most people would get that. Yeah, you got a point! I don't think he was a charlatan however, he meant well and did some good too, (at least for me). He has also furthered the awareness of Vedic culture, which has to be a good thing. You must find something good about him yes? Did he help you at all? Hadn't heard that Shantideva quote, thanks.
