Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:04 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. Seems like he haven't been reading the fourth paada. The first suutra sez: ...samaadhi-jaaH siddhayaH. ... which could be translated to 'siddhis are born of (or: the result of) samaadhi'. 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:54 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. Vaj has for years been happy to try to put the experiences of others down and trying to create doubts. No wonder he does not want to describe his own (lack of) experiences. The truth is what is important and that is often obscured in traditions that don't come from a pure lineal tradition. If you want to flaunt your experiences in public, that's of course your business. I'll continue to do what's appropriate. There is a state beyond the discussion of experiences. Once that need diminishes, it's superfluous to talk about meditative experiences any longer accept under certain circumstances.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!!
[FairfieldLife] 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources.
[FairfieldLife] 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to.
[FairfieldLife] 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, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your secrets to yourselves. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational arguments and we can talk. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Good, try. Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to. The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use personalattack otherwise?
[FairfieldLife] 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, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your secrets to yourselves. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational arguments and we can talk. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Good, try. Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to. The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use personalattack otherwise? I'm not attacking you t3inity, it just is rather obvious to me what your quote is referring to: the triad of absorptions (a very valuable practice indeed) but it does not refer to their use for siddhis. If I am missing something or you have a quote from Madhusadana which *does* mention using samyama on the siddhi formulae and practices, then please post it. Your confusing the plain practice of samyama, the triad of the three yogic absorptions, with the practice of samyama ON siddhi formulae (and associated practices). There is a difference, but it's for me to apologize for your ignorance of this fact? No, it's for me to point out this fact, not as any sort of fundamentalist, certainly, but from what my knowledge of what the teachings are. Samyama in the yoga sutra refers to a particular practice: dharana, dhyana and samadhi. That term of and by itself does not specify what object that samyama is being performed on. Since the prohibition on samyama
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Samyama in the yoga sutra refers to a particular practice: dharana, dhyana and samadhi. That term of and by itself does not specify what object that samyama is being performed on. Well, here's Vyaasa's comment on III 1 naabhi-cakre hRdaya-puNDariike muurdhni jyotiSi naasikaagre jihvaagra ityevamaadiSu desheSu baahye vaa viSaye cittasya vRtti-maatrena bandha iti dhaaraNaa Sat sapienti? :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
Vaj writes snipped; 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. TomT: As I have stated previously The sutras are not a prescription for awakening, but a description of an awakened life. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. Seems like he haven't been reading the fourth paada. The first suutra sez: ...samaadhi-jaaH siddhayaH. ... which could be translated to 'siddhis are born of (or: the result of) samaadhi'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. Seems like he haven't Ei toi niin paha virhe taida olla, että sitä viitsisi ryhtyä editoimaan, vaikka olinkin hetki sitten ryhtymäisilläni tuohon puuhaan... Ye be glad that ye don't have to speak a depressing Uralic language! :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. Vaj has for years been happy to try to put the experiences of others down and trying to create doubts. No wonder he does not want to describe his own (lack of) experiences.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. As for the wisdom of sages, its like that expression about lying with statistics-- some quotation can be found in the long history of spirtual literature to back up anything. Means very little when warning about siddhis for example. And as I have said, why bother to warn people about siddhis, repeatedly? Either they work or they don't, and if properly taught, no problem, in my opinion. But just you opinion. I did practice them for many years-- very helpful, no issues, worked exactly as my teacher explained they would. Lots of fun too! You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. Really? Could you quote an example? from your past posting. Reads like a warning to me: One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. Note: I didn't write this last part. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or outward and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for outward stroke). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc. You have replied that this is backed up by your personal experience, but it just reads like dogma to me. meant to frighten the reader about the siddhis if not done properly, i.e. according to the guidance of a teacher you approve of. Pure dogma, Vaj. LOL. As I've mentioned recently, there are exceptions. So of course that means it's not a dogma then. You haven't seen listening closely methinks! When you say there are exceptions, to whatever it is you are warning against or criticizing, it comes across as someone trying to cover their rear, vs. keeping an open mind, and to me, that still reeks of dogma. I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion. As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice. I don't know what a 'deflected rising' is. In any case, I'd like to hear more about you and your experiences, and less about books you've read or teachers you are quoting. Not my style really. If it's appropriate, I may, but otherwise 'why bother' I say. Only because it lends credibility. Otherwise you just sound like any other critic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic truth of the matter is another thing altogether. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. Not all yogis are interested in liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with such black magicians. So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of observations into possible obstacles are--what the snares are. It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are and 2) why to avoid them. There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them as by-products. But I have to admit, you certainly have your rationalizations down good! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic truth of the matter is another thing altogether. Which is why I said It's possible to understand... rather than anything more definitive, you see. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. Just not very convincing. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. The third chapter being the one that contains the siddhis sutras and explains how and why their practice leads to liberation. Not all yogis are interested in liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with such black magicians. So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of observations into possible obstacles are--what the snares are. But if you don't know what the practices are (the siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are and 2) why to avoid them. The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not events. If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and how to light them, he's not likely to start fires with them. There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them as by-products. Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as byproducts that one is not to get wrapped up in. But I have to admit, you certainly have your rationalizations down good! :-) Sorry, but I find your rationalizations quite unconvincing. There may well be a good explanation, but I haven't come across it, and your attempt sure ain't it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic truth of the matter is another thing altogether. Which is why I said It's possible to understand... rather than anything more definitive, you see. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. Just not very convincing. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. The third chapter being the one that contains the siddhis sutras and explains how and why their practice leads to liberation. No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which is not liberation my dear. In the Shankaracharya tradition teaching, all the siddhis are skipped and then the techniques start with the mention of viveka-khyati. Not all yogis are interested in liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with such black magicians. So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of observations into possible obstacles are--what the snares are. But if you don't know what the practices are (the siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. The practices behind the sutras are different than just repeating the sutra mentally Judy. There are very specific practices these refer to. For example, the sun, moon and polestar have to do with techniques involving the central channel. You're confusing the sutras for the practices behind them (which are not specified in the sutras themselves). It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are and 2) why to avoid them. The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not events. If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and how to light them, he's not likely to start fires with them. The siddhis are events that occur to yogis Judy. The traditional instruction for siddhis (when they manifest spontaneously) is to handle these events no differently from any other casual (non- special) event in our lives. In other words, if during the fruition of your practice you experienced a particular siddhi, that should be no different than say the casualness of noticing an unusual bird fly by, and then just going on to your activities with out perseverating over that event (the bird flying by). The problem with siddhis but especially the cultivation of siddhis is that it's extremely difficult to treat them in sameness (with other phenomenon). And therefore a form of attachment forms which creates obscurations as pure awareness is obscured thru attachment (and non-evenness) to special events. There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them as by-products. Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as byproducts that one is not to get wrapped up in. Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic truth of the matter is another thing altogether. Which is why I said It's possible to understand... rather than anything more definitive, you see. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. Just not very convincing. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. The third chapter being the one that contains the siddhis sutras and explains how and why their practice leads to liberation. No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which is not liberation my dear. In the Shankaracharya tradition teaching, all the siddhis are skipped and then the techniques start with the mention of viveka-khyati. Not all yogis are interested in liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with such black magicians. So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of observations into possible obstacles are--what the snares are. But if you don't know what the practices are (the siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. The practices behind the sutras are different than just repeating the sutra mentally Judy. There are very specific practices these refer to. For example, the sun, moon and polestar have to do with techniques involving the central channel. You're confusing the sutras for the practices behind them (which are not specified in the sutras themselves). It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are and 2) why to avoid them. The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not events. If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and how to light them, he's not likely to start fires with them. The siddhis are events that occur to yogis Judy. The traditional instruction for siddhis (when they manifest spontaneously) is to handle these events no differently from any other casual (non- special) event in our lives. In other words, if during the fruition of your practice you experienced a particular siddhi, that should be no different than say the casualness of noticing an unusual bird fly by, and then just going on to your activities with out perseverating over that event (the bird flying by). The problem with siddhis but especially the cultivation of siddhis is that it's extremely difficult to treat them in sameness (with other phenomenon). And therefore a form of attachment forms which creates obscurations as pure awareness is obscured thru attachment (and non-evenness) to special events. There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:57 PM, BillyG. wrote: It's actually what my teachers from this tradition have taught me and of course it has a textually and lineal basis as well. I may or may not be of some help here, but, perhaps the warning is there to remind one that the siddhis should only be practiced under the competent supervision of an enlightened Master or Guru! There are actually many similar warning about siddhis and none that I've read, nor have I heard anything different from any teacher in the Hindu yogic traditions. One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or outward and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for outward stroke). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:57 PM, BillyG. wrote: It's actually what my teachers from this tradition have taught me and of course it has a textually and lineal basis as well. I may or may not be of some help here, but, perhaps the warning is there to remind one that the siddhis should only be practiced under the competent supervision of an enlightened Master or Guru! There are actually many similar warning about siddhis and none that I've read, nor have I heard anything different from any teacher in the Hindu yogic traditions. One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or outward and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for outward stroke). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc. Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. I found my way in most endeavors of my life independently, often times defying conventional wisdom. If someone is completely clueless about what they are doing and how it is affecting them, then yes, be very careful, because crossing the street is probably a challenge also. Other than that, do whatever you want, explore life, try out new stuff constsntly, experiment, be mindful, do a new practice. Be an artist and a scientist or just do whatever you like and see what happens. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a warning against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic truth of the matter is another thing altogether. Which is why I said It's possible to understand... rather than anything more definitive, you see. The big problem with the warning interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. Just not very convincing. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. The third chapter being the one that contains the siddhis sutras and explains how and why their practice leads to liberation. No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which is not liberation my dear. 3:56: sattva purusayoh suddhi samye kaivalyam iti Perfect freedom occurs when pure consciousness and the purity of soul become equal. snip But if you don't know what the practices are (the siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. The practices behind the sutras are different than just repeating the sutra mentally Judy. Non sequitur. snip There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them as by-products. Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as byproducts that one is not to get wrapped up in. Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. Really? Could you quote an example? I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion. As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. As for the wisdom of sages, its like that expression about lying with statistics-- some quotation can be found in the long history of spirtual literature to back up anything. Means very little when warning about siddhis for example. And as I have said, why bother to warn people about siddhis, repeatedly? Either they work or they don't, and if properly taught, no problem, in my opinion. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. Really? Could you quote an example? from your past posting. Reads like a warning to me: One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or outward and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for outward stroke). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc. You have replied that this is backed up by your personal experience, but it just reads like dogma to me. meant to frighten the reader about the siddhis if not done properly, i.e. according to the guidance of a teacher you approve of. Pure dogma, Vaj. I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion. As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice. I don't know what a 'deflected rising' is. In any case, I'd like to hear more about you and your experiences, and less about books you've read or teachers you are quoting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. As for the wisdom of sages, its like that expression about lying with statistics-- some quotation can be found in the long history of spirtual literature to back up anything. Means very little when warning about siddhis for example. And as I have said, why bother to warn people about siddhis, repeatedly? Either they work or they don't, and if properly taught, no problem, in my opinion. But just you opinion. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. Really? Could you quote an example? from your past posting. Reads like a warning to me: One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. Note: I didn't write this last part. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or outward and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for outward stroke). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc. You have replied that this is backed up by your personal experience, but it just reads like dogma to me. meant to frighten the reader about the siddhis if not done properly, i.e. according to the guidance of a teacher you approve of. Pure dogma, Vaj. LOL. As I've mentioned recently, there are exceptions. So of course that means it's not a dogma then. You haven't seen listening closely methinks! I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion. As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice. I don't know what a 'deflected rising' is. In any case, I'd like to hear more about you and your experiences, and less about books you've read or teachers you are quoting. Not my style really. If it's appropriate, I may, but otherwise 'why bother' I say.
