[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller, 
> > > higher than even the subtlest relative.
> > >
> Billy wrote:
> > In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort 
> > Prakriti, wherein is found his immanent nature Brahma, the 
> > son, the Creative intelligence behind and controlling the 
> > Gunas/Prakriti.
> >
> There's no mention in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras of Ishvara "and 
> his consort" >>


And yet Rama and Sita were known in ancient Egypt, at least 3,000 
years earlier, as was Sanskrit.

OffWorld


<<- that idea came much later with the rise of the 
> tantric sects during the Gupta Age. The Yoga of Patanjali is 
> based on the Sankhya or radical dualism - there's no shakti 
> in it and no impersonal God, which if you think about it, is 
> a contradiction in terms.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say 
> > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, 
> > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya 
> > due to the effects of the gunas.
> > 
> The point I was trying to make, John, is that if 
> Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and 
> parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject 
> to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, 
> the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion 
> - a result of Maya, thus not real. >>

You are mistaken, the creator brahm is not the highest god. 
Mahalakshmi is.

OffWorld

 illusion and not real, then there is no Transcendental 
> Person in the absolute sense. You must admit that this 
> is a significant conundrum and probably the reason why 
> all the Upanishadic commentators ascribed to either 
> dualism, quasi-dulaism, or qualified dualsism - 
> Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallaba, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya, 
> instead of adwaita. While all these acharyas were 
> transcendentalists, they did not agree with Shankara 
> concerning the Absolute nature of the Purusha. In 
> fact, as pointed out by Vaj, the notion that Brahman 
> is an unmanifest and impersonal Absolute without 
> attributes is almost pure Middle Way Buddhism 
> (Madyamika). It is very difficult to relate on a 
> personal level to a non-person and at the same time 
> call that person God, who is obviously a Person, 
> by definition, according to the Upanishads.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote:
> 
> > I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the
> > divine through his vedic background.
> 

> What Vedic background?>>


Probably the one called "Rig Ved"you know, the oldest transmitted 
record? Remember?the one that is orated in Sanskrit, and as the 
oldest record of such. Yoga Sutras are also orated in Sanskrit. 

You know...the one that talks about yogis and yoga. Remember that 
one?...The Rig Ved.

OffWorld

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[John]

Billy,

My comments to your other statements are as follows:

1.> > The fall was the temptation of Lucifer in the spinal canal of 
infant humanity, (sexual energy in the spine, hence the metaphor of 
the snake), now he had freewill and 'fell' (i.e. succumbed to 
> temptation) from the nursery home of his passive spiritual 
consciousness in the higher regions of the then constituted brain. 
> >
When I was in high school many years ago, I read a book which stated 
that Lucifer and his cohorts rebelled from the status quo of the 
heavenly realm because of humans.  Based on his super intuitive 
powers, Lucifer was able to deduce that the Almighty had plans to 
manifest on earth by incarnating as a human being.

Lucifer and his friends were angered by this idea as they thought 
they, as angels, were more advanced than humans.  They did not want 
humans to inherit the divine life.  Thus, the rebellion started in 
heaven.

Needless to say, Lucifer and his rebels lost the battle and were sent 
to Hell.  From there, Lucifer made it his mission to make humans fall 
from grace.  Thus, we see the work of the snake in the Garden of 
Eden.  This idea is played out in Milton's Paradise Lost.

(to be continued)

Regards,

John R.








 
> > He now launched his journey thru learning the lessons of 
matter/life
> > and its opposites, until he achieves MASTERY and becomes a 
*MASTER 
> OF
> > THE UNIVERSE*. A veritable Purusha in his own right. As it says 
in 
> the
> > Bible...
> > 
> >  Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children 
of
> > the most High.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)

[Vaj]

On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote:


I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the
divine through his vedic background.


What Vedic background?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)

[John]

Richard,

I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the 
divine through his vedic background.  He was confirming and validating 
some of the techniques to realize the Self.  Based on Iyengar's 
translation of the Yoga Sutras, I came to a conclusion that each sutra 
can be analyzed and dissected in many ways based on the various 
traditions of vedic knowledge.  Iyengar's translation has given me the 
impression that the path of yoga is very austere and time consuming.

On the other hand, MMY's explanation of the Yoga Sutras makes the path 
of yoga appear easy and accessible.

Regards,

John R.

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about 
> > the nature of the divine.
> >
> Did Patanjali make any such speculations?
> 
> > > Which brings us to the final question: what is reality?
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138751
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
> In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about 
> the nature of the divine.
>
Did Patanjali make any such speculations?

> > Which brings us to the final question: what is reality?
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138751

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
wrote:
> > It's not my intention to be nasty, but I don't think it's
> > a trivial matter if you confuse for instance "brahma"(Brahman,
> > the Absolute) with "brahmaa" (the Creator).
>  
> The reason Swami Yogananda uses Brahm, with the silent a or short 
a,
> is to denote the underlying Creative Intelligence of the Universe 
as
> opposed to its personalized use as the Holy Triad, (Brahmaa, 
Vishnu,
> Shiva), so that is the distinction...your argument would be with 
Swami
> Yogananda, not me.
> 
> MMY also uses Brahm to connote the Purusha, however you must 
remember
> that God is both manifest AND Unmanifest, so MMY is referring to 
both,
> because God IS both!  MMY also has used the word Brahmanso now
> he's using TWO words!  Two different meanings.
> 
> Brahman-Unmanifest, Absolute, beyond Creation.
> 
> Brahm-Manifest Creative Intelligence, omnipresent in Creation.
> 
> Brahmaa-Only one part of the trinity, the whole trinity being 
Brahm.
> 
> This is the distinction FYI, whether or not it is accurate or not I
> don't know, you be the judge.
>

I don't believe you'll encounter the form "brahm" in "polished" 
Sanskrit transliteration. Otherwise, the case is closed 
for my part.  :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not my intention to be nasty, but I don't think it's
> a trivial matter if you confuse for instance "brahma"(Brahman,
> the Absolute) with "brahmaa" (the Creator).
 
The reason Swami Yogananda uses Brahm, with the silent a or short a,
is to denote the underlying Creative Intelligence of the Universe as
opposed to its personalized use as the Holy Triad, (Brahmaa, Vishnu,
Shiva), so that is the distinction...your argument would be with Swami
Yogananda, not me.

MMY also uses Brahm to connote the Purusha, however you must remember
that God is both manifest AND Unmanifest, so MMY is referring to both,
because God IS both!  MMY also has used the word Brahmanso now
he's using TWO words!  Two different meanings.

Brahman-Unmanifest, Absolute, beyond Creation.

Brahm-Manifest Creative Intelligence, omnipresent in Creation.

Brahmaa-Only one part of the trinity, the whole trinity being Brahm.

This is the distinction FYI, whether or not it is accurate or not I
don't know, you be the judge.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[John]

Billy,

My comments are as follows:

1.> Yes, but walked with God was meaning back in the Lemurian and
> Atlantian epochs where man in the making was shepherded by the gods
> out of necessity.  It was only until the form side of Adam/Eve 
became crystalized enough thru in-volution was it capable of being en-
souled.
> 
> The life side (the spark) is his spiritual nature, 'who's splendor
> knows no end', via e-volution

The point you're making here is the area of debate between the those 
who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and the Creationists in 
the USA.  Darwin's theory has a strong case for being true, but ispar 
not completely conclusive.

On the other hand, the Creationists appear to agree with the vedic 
story that humans have been on earth for millions of years and were 
even more advanced eons ago than the humans of today.  For this 
reason, it is said that the vedas were written in segments in order 
for people in Kali Yuga to understand their import.

If this was the case, where did humans come from?  Did we come from 
the milieu of the earth or from the other worlds?

As you have implied when you mentioned Lemuria, it may be that humans 
came from the descendants of Lemuria or other worlds not known to 
us.  From the book entitled Lemurian Scrolls, the author stated that 
there were advanced beings who traveled spiritually from a planet in 
constellation of Pleiades to earth.  These beings could have embodied 
themselves here on earth to continue their evolution.

>From what I understand the myth of Atlantis may be the same as the 
one of Lemuria.

I'll address your other points the next time.

Regards,

John R.













> 
> > This implies that the human physiology has the capacity to attain 
and 
> > retain divine consciousness.  So, it would mean that the divine 
was 
> > one with humans, the created entity or Prakriti, in the 
beginning.  
> > However, something occurred in the course of time which made 
> > humans 'fall' from their previous exalted position.
> 
> The fall was the temptation of Lucifer in the spinal canal of infant
> humanity, (sexual energy in the spine, hence the metaphor of the
> snake), now he had freewill and 'fell' (i.e. succumbed to 
temptation)
> from the nursery home of his passive spiritual consciousness in the
> higher regions of the then constituted brain. 
> 
> He now launched his journey thru learning the lessons of matter/life
> and its opposites, until he achieves MASTERY and becomes a *MASTER 
OF
> THE UNIVERSE*. A veritable Purusha in his own right. As it says in 
the
> Bible...
> 
>  Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of
> the most High.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
> > wrote:
> > > > From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> > > > to know what exactly is your source for that.
> > > 
> > > The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Swami Yogananda's 
book,
> > > "The Second Coming of Christ". 
> > > 
> > > > Actually, those Hindi truncations(?) of Sanskrit words
> > > > make me "furious"! Well, at least a bit irritated...  :]
> > > 
> > > But there is a good reason for it as Brahm-a with 'short' a, 
> > signifies
> > > something different than Brahmaa (two a's for effect only) 
with a 
> > long
> > > a.  
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "for effect only" but the 
difference
> > between "brahma" (nominative singular *neuter* gender form of the
> > word whose lemma , i.e, "dictionary form" is "brahman") 
and "brahmaa"
> > (nominative singular *masculine* form of the..., etc.) is 
*almost*
> > as essential as the difference in English between, say , "fit"
> > and "feet". I know there's a *qualitative*, not just 
quantitative, 
> > difference between the vowels in those words, but that's the 
closest
> > analogy I can think of in English to the importance of the length
> > of vowels in Sanskrit, where it is a so called distinctive 
feature,
> > that is, two words with totally different meanings can differ 
from
> > each other only by the length of their vowel, like for instance
> > "sama" (same) and "saama" (song, and stuff).
> > 
> > Here are some forms of the singular inflectional paradigm
> > of the word (whose lemma is) "brahman":
> > 
> > nominative singular masculine   brahmaa
> > (Example: yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH)
> > accusative singular masculine   brahmaanam
> > 
> > nominative singular neuter  brahma
> > (anaadimat paraM brahma...)
> > accusative singular neuter  brahma
> > 
> > Actually, the "criterion" for a neuter gender
> > word in Sanskrit is that its nominative and accusative
> > (English: objective) are identical in form.
> > 
> > In the rest of the inflectional cases (instrumental, dative,
> > ablative, genitive and locative) 'n' appears as a "separator"
> > - or whatever it's officially called - between the stem and
> > the suffix; for instance, genitive (English: possessive)
> > singular of both masculine and neuter inflection is 
> > "brahmanaH" (because of a peculiar assimilation , actually: 
> > brahmaNaH - brahma-N-aH).
> 
> 
> I just set'em up and you knock'em down, I'm NO expert!
>
¨
It's not my intention to be nasty, but I don't think it's
a trivial matter if you confuse for instance "brahma"(Brahman,
the Absolute) with "brahmaa" (the Creator).

The word that's usually written as "Brahman" (for a reason), is 
actually of the same type of words as "karma". I don't recall having
seen the latter written as "karman" although its inflectional
forms contain the same 'n' as "Brahman", for instance
genitive/ablative "karmaNaH" (karma's, of karma; from karma).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)

[John]

Richard,

In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of 
the divine.  But, as humans, we do not have the same capacity to 
understand the mystery of creation (or even before it) as the 
divine.  I find Thomas Merton's words to be practical when he said 
that God is infinite and at the same time He or She is NOT.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say 
> > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, 
> > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya 
> > due to the effects of the gunas.
> > 
> The point I was trying to make, John, is that if 
> Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and 
> parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject 
> to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, 
> the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion 
> - a result of Maya, thus not real. If God is an 
> illusion and not real, then there is no Transcendental 
> Person in the absolute sense. You must admit that this 
> is a significant conundrum and probably the reason why 
> all the Upanishadic commentators ascribed to either 
> dualism, quasi-dulaism, or qualified dualsism - 
> Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallaba, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya, 
> instead of adwaita. While all these acharyas were 
> transcendentalists, they did not agree with Shankara 
> concerning the Absolute nature of the Purusha. In 
> fact, as pointed out by Vaj, the notion that Brahman 
> is an unmanifest and impersonal Absolute without 
> attributes is almost pure Middle Way Buddhism 
> (Madyamika). It is very difficult to relate on a 
> personal level to a non-person and at the same time 
> call that person God, who is obviously a Person, 
> by definition, according to the Upanishads.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
> wrote:
> > > From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> > > to know what exactly is your source for that.
> > 
> > The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Swami Yogananda's book,
> > "The Second Coming of Christ". 
> > 
> > > Actually, those Hindi truncations(?) of Sanskrit words
> > > make me "furious"! Well, at least a bit irritated...  :]
> > 
> > But there is a good reason for it as Brahm-a with 'short' a, 
> signifies
> > something different than Brahmaa (two a's for effect only) with a 
> long
> > a.  
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "for effect only" but the difference
> between "brahma" (nominative singular *neuter* gender form of the
> word whose lemma , i.e, "dictionary form" is "brahman") and "brahmaa"
> (nominative singular *masculine* form of the..., etc.) is *almost*
> as essential as the difference in English between, say , "fit"
> and "feet". I know there's a *qualitative*, not just quantitative, 
> difference between the vowels in those words, but that's the closest
> analogy I can think of in English to the importance of the length
> of vowels in Sanskrit, where it is a so called distinctive feature,
> that is, two words with totally different meanings can differ from
> each other only by the length of their vowel, like for instance
> "sama" (same) and "saama" (song, and stuff).
> 
> Here are some forms of the singular inflectional paradigm
> of the word (whose lemma is) "brahman":
> 
> nominative singular masculine   brahmaa
> (Example: yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH)
> accusative singular masculine   brahmaanam
> 
> nominative singular neuter  brahma
> (anaadimat paraM brahma...)
> accusative singular neuter  brahma
> 
> Actually, the "criterion" for a neuter gender
> word in Sanskrit is that its nominative and accusative
> (English: objective) are identical in form.
> 
> In the rest of the inflectional cases (instrumental, dative,
> ablative, genitive and locative) 'n' appears as a "separator"
> - or whatever it's officially called - between the stem and
> the suffix; for instance, genitive (English: possessive)
> singular of both masculine and neuter inflection is 
> "brahmanaH" (because of a peculiar assimilation , actually: 
> brahmaNaH - brahma-N-aH).


I just set'em up and you knock'em down, I'm NO expert!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
wrote:
> > From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> > to know what exactly is your source for that.
> 
> The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Swami Yogananda's book,
> "The Second Coming of Christ". 
> 
> > Actually, those Hindi truncations(?) of Sanskrit words
> > make me "furious"! Well, at least a bit irritated...  :]
> 
> But there is a good reason for it as Brahm-a with 'short' a, 
signifies
> something different than Brahmaa (two a's for effect only) with a 
long
> a.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "for effect only" but the difference
between "brahma" (nominative singular *neuter* gender form of the
word whose lemma , i.e, "dictionary form" is "brahman") and "brahmaa"
(nominative singular *masculine* form of the..., etc.) is *almost*
as essential as the difference in English between, say , "fit"
and "feet". I know there's a *qualitative*, not just quantitative, 
difference between the vowels in those words, but that's the closest
analogy I can think of in English to the importance of the length
of vowels in Sanskrit, where it is a so called distinctive feature,
that is, two words with totally different meanings can differ from
each other only by the length of their vowel, like for instance
"sama" (same) and "saama" (song, and stuff).

Here are some forms of the singular inflectional paradigm
of the word (whose lemma is) "brahman":

nominative singular masculine   brahmaa
(Example: yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH)
accusative singular masculine   brahmaanam

nominative singular neuter  brahma
(anaadimat paraM brahma...)
accusative singular neuter  brahma

Actually, the "criterion" for a neuter gender
word in Sanskrit is that its nominative and accusative
(English: objective) are identical in form.

In the rest of the inflectional cases (instrumental, dative,
ablative, genitive and locative) 'n' appears as a "separator"
- or whatever it's officially called - between the stem and
the suffix; for instance, genitive (English: possessive)
singular of both masculine and neuter inflection is 
"brahmanaH" (because of a peculiar assimilation , actually: 
brahmaNaH - brahma-N-aH).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Among theological circles, Moses is proclaimed to be the author of 
> the Myth of Eden.  Given his Hebrew background, the ideas of maya and 
> prakriti are foreign to him.

I think it would be hard to say what Moses knew

  However, he did make a point that Adam 
> and Eve "walked with God".  This means that, as humans, they were 
> living the most exalted life here on earth.  In other words, they 
> possessed the highest level of consciousness in  vedic terms.

Yes, but walked with God was meaning back in the Lemurian and
Atlantian epochs where man in the making was shepherded by the gods
out of necessity.  It was only until the form side of Adam/Eve became
crystalized enough thru in-volution was it capable of being en-souled.

The life side (the spark) is his spiritual nature, 'who's splendor
knows no end', via e-volution

> This implies that the human physiology has the capacity to attain and 
> retain divine consciousness.  So, it would mean that the divine was 
> one with humans, the created entity or Prakriti, in the beginning.  
> However, something occurred in the course of time which made 
> humans 'fall' from their previous exalted position.

The fall was the temptation of Lucifer in the spinal canal of infant
humanity, (sexual energy in the spine, hence the metaphor of the
snake), now he had freewill and 'fell' (i.e. succumbed to temptation)
from the nursery home of his passive spiritual consciousness in the
higher regions of the then constituted brain. 

He now launched his journey thru learning the lessons of matter/life
and its opposites, until he achieves MASTERY and becomes a *MASTER OF
THE UNIVERSE*. A veritable Purusha in his own right. As it says in the
Bible...

 Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> to know what exactly is your source for that.

The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Swami Yogananda's book,
"The Second Coming of Christ". 

> Actually, those Hindi truncations(?) of Sanskrit words
> make me "furious"! Well, at least a bit irritated...  :]

But there is a good reason for it as Brahm-a with 'short' a, signifies
something different than Brahmaa (two a's for effect only) with a long
a.  The former refers to the omnipresent Pususha or the formless (can
take any form) Creative intelligence in nature, (Brahman's reflection
in Prakriti).

The long a is consistent with the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu,
Shiva; for what it's worth, I know little about the pantheon of Hindu
gods per se! :-)

Hence when MMY talks about Brahm, he apparently means the Creative
Intelligence/God consciousness underlying all of manifest creation,
not the trinity per se. Brahman is unmanifest/Absolute.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[John]

Billy G.,

Your response is very thought provoking.  I'm sure the theologians 
and yogis of the past have addressed your ideas one way or another.  
My take is as follows:
 
1.> Certainly 'Adam and Eve", (representing the thinking and the 
feeling part of man's nature, even today) the androgynous human, was 
largely a 'descended' one or a product of maya/prakriti, although 
with the onset of freewill he was 'enabled' to become as gods, 
literally as the Bible points out, and that will be his/her destiny.
> 

Among theological circles, Moses is proclaimed to be the author of 
the Myth of Eden.  Given his Hebrew background, the ideas of maya and 
prakriti are foreign to him.  However, he did make a point that Adam 
and Eve "walked with God".  This means that, as humans, they were 
living the most exalted life here on earth.  In other words, they 
possessed the highest level of consciousness in  vedic terms.

This implies that the human physiology has the capacity to attain and 
retain divine consciousness.  So, it would mean that the divine was 
one with humans, the created entity or prakriti, in the beginning.  
However, something occurred in the course of time which made 
humans 'fall' from their previous exalted position.

(to be continued, as I have to go to work..lol)




2.> As Adam/Eve sinned or transgressed the laws of nature they set in
> motion the inevitable law of consequence or karma and are working 
out their destiny till today as is the Divine Plan. We got tricked by 
the Satanic force of Maya/illusion which cast a hypnotic spell on us 
which only the Purusha can dispel.
> 
> 
> > I believe the error was that they as humans assumed Knowledge can 
be 
> > obtained through the senses and phenomenal existence alone.  In 
other 
> > words, they thought they were gods.
> 
> I think they were promised, correctly, that they would become as 
gods
> but in actuality they became *egos* or maya identified/deluded
> entities...remember the flower analogy by MMY?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brahm is Brahman's reflection in Prakriti, as such He/She is 
limited
> in time and space. A blue crystal ball will refect the yellow 
light of
> the sun IN the crystal, as blue...once the crystal ball (prakriti)
> disolves the 'blue' light returns to its source/color of the sun 
or 
> Brahman/unmanifest).
> 
> Reality consists of; Illusion/Prakriti the Mother Divine OM 
vibration,
> the TAT/Brahm or son of the, Father/Brahman SAT. OM TAT SAT. Life 
is
> BOTH Relative AND Absolute that is the reality. So in essence you 
are
> right but to dismiss all manifestations of Brahman as illusions is
> better left to Prakriti perhaps, they're all real, but limited to 
time
> and space.
> 

>From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
to know what exactly is your source for that.
Actually, those Hindi truncations(?) of Sanskrit words
make me "furious"! Well, at least a bit irritated...  :]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say 
> > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, 
> > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya 
> > due to the effects of the gunas.
> > 
> The point I was trying to make, John, is that if 
> Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and 
> parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject 
> to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, 
> the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion 
> - a result of Maya, thus not real. 

Brahm is Brahman's reflection in Prakriti, as such He/She is limited
in time and space. A blue crystal ball will refect the yellow light of
the sun IN the crystal, as blue...once the crystal ball (prakriti)
disolves the 'blue' light returns to its source/color of the sun or 
Brahman/unmanifest).

Reality consists of; Illusion/Prakriti the Mother Divine OM vibration,
the TAT/Brahm or son of the, Father/Brahman SAT. OM TAT SAT. Life is
BOTH Relative AND Absolute that is the reality. So in essence you are
right but to dismiss all manifestations of Brahman as illusions is
better left to Prakriti perhaps, they're all real, but limited to time
and space.

snip>
 It is very difficult to relate on a 
> personal level to a non-person and at the same time 
> call that person God, who is obviously a Person, 
> by definition, according to the Upanishads.

God is both personal and impersonal according to MMY.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
> As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say 
> that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, 
> then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya 
> due to the effects of the gunas.
> 
The point I was trying to make, John, is that if 
Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and 
parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject 
to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, 
the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion 
- a result of Maya, thus not real. If God is an 
illusion and not real, then there is no Transcendental 
Person in the absolute sense. You must admit that this 
is a significant conundrum and probably the reason why 
all the Upanishadic commentators ascribed to either 
dualism, quasi-dulaism, or qualified dualsism - 
Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallaba, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya, 
instead of adwaita. While all these acharyas were 
transcendentalists, they did not agree with Shankara 
concerning the Absolute nature of the Purusha. In 
fact, as pointed out by Vaj, the notion that Brahman 
is an unmanifest and impersonal Absolute without 
attributes is almost pure Middle Way Buddhism 
(Madyamika). It is very difficult to relate on a 
personal level to a non-person and at the same time 
call that person God, who is obviously a Person, 
by definition, according to the Upanishads.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip>
> In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the effects of Maya is similar to 
> the myth of Eden, where humans have lost the capacity to enjoy divine 
> existence while here on Earth due to the error (sin) of Adam and 
> Eve.  
>snip

Certainly 'Adam and Eve", (representing the thinking and the feeling
part of man's nature, even today) the androgynous human, was largely a
'descended' one or a product of maya/prakriti, although with the onset
of freewill he was 'enabled' to become as gods, literally as the Bible
points out, and that will be his/her destiny.

As Adam/Eve sinned or transgressed the laws of nature they set in
motion the inevitable law of consequence or karma and are working out
their destiny till today as is the Divine Plan. We got tricked by the
Satanic force of Maya/illusion which cast a hypnotic spell on us which
only the Purusha can dispel.


> I believe the error was that they as humans assumed Knowledge can be 
> obtained through the senses and phenomenal existence alone.  In other 
> words, they thought they were gods.

I think they were promised, correctly, that they would become as gods
but in actuality they became *egos* or maya identified/deluded
entities...remember the flower analogy by MMY?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Billy G. and all)

[John]

To Billy G.

Several years ago, when Deepak Chopra was with the TM Movement, he 
explained that the person in cosmic consciousness or at higher levels 
of consciousness recognizes that the phenomenal existence and one's 
Self is the same.  That is, he or she can say that a tree in the park 
is really one's own Self.

>From this analogy, we can understand why MMY has proclaimed that it 
is possible to realize heaven here on earth, or change the progress 
of time.  These are bold words, and for most people appear 
impossible.  

As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say that if one has not 
reached cosmic consciousness, then the phenomenal world is an 
illusion or Maya due to the effects of the gunas.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the effects of Maya is similar to 
the myth of Eden, where humans have lost the capacity to enjoy divine 
existence while here on Earth due to the error (sin) of Adam and 
Eve.  

I believe the error was that they as humans assumed Knowledge can be 
obtained through the senses and phenomenal existence alone.  In other 
words, they thought they were gods.

Regards,

John R.








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
>  wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >The
> > word transcendental in the Upanishads means "beyond the 
> > material world".
> >snip
> 
> An Important point often lost in TM circles...when we 'transcend' 
we 
> first achieve awareness of the SELF which is the anandamaya kosha 
> (bliss/ananda covering/kosha), which is still the material world or 
> part of the three worlds (high causal). 
> 
> Once we transcend that, we realize the immanent (omnipresent and 
the 
> spiritual foundation of the material world but still manifest) 
> Purusha 
> or Soul of the Personal God, MMY's God Consciousness.
> 
> After we realize the immanent Purusha, (GC) the "all pervading 
> Brahma" 
> or whatever you wish to call it (Krishna, Christ, Buddhic, etc.) 
THEN 
> we transcend that and achieve the Nirvana or the Absolute Brahman 
> *Unmanifest*.
> 
> Three levels of unfoldment..."and NO man cometh unto the Father 
> (Brahman) except thru me", which is the God consciousness 
foundation 
> of the 
> *material* universe as distinct from Brahman the *unmanifest* 
> foundation of ALL 
> Universes!
> 
> MMY defines the transcendent as beyond the three worlds (physical, 
> astral causal). Remember there is the jiva/individual soul, the 
> greater 
> jiva (or soul of the material world, Brahman's reflection in matter 
> limited by time and space, the personal God consciousness) or the 
> Atman, 
> and then finally there is *unmanifest* Brahman the foundation of 
all 
> worlds.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>snip
>The
> word transcendental in the Upanishads means "beyond the 
> material world".
>snip

An Important point often lost in TM circles...when we 'transcend' we 
first achieve awareness of the SELF which is the anandamaya kosha 
(bliss/ananda covering/kosha), which is still the material world or 
part of the three worlds (high causal). 

Once we transcend that, we realize the immanent (omnipresent and the 
spiritual foundation of the material world but still manifest) 
Purusha 
or Soul of the Personal God, MMY's God Consciousness.

After we realize the immanent Purusha, (GC) the "all pervading 
Brahma" 
or whatever you wish to call it (Krishna, Christ, Buddhic, etc.) THEN 
we transcend that and achieve the Nirvana or the Absolute Brahman 
*Unmanifest*.

Three levels of unfoldment..."and NO man cometh unto the Father 
(Brahman) except thru me", which is the God consciousness foundation 
of the 
*material* universe as distinct from Brahman the *unmanifest* 
foundation of ALL 
Universes!

MMY defines the transcendent as beyond the three worlds (physical, 
astral causal). Remember there is the jiva/individual soul, the 
greater 
jiva (or soul of the material world, Brahman's reflection in matter 
limited by time and space, the personal God consciousness) or the 
Atman, 
and then finally there is *unmanifest* Brahman the foundation of all 
worlds.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> That's only because the three are related in terms 
> of emergence. Non-dual Shaivite Hinduism is likely 
> derived from Zhang Zhung rishi's pre-Buddhist 
> Mantrayana and Mahasandhi. 
>
What in the hell are talking about, Vaj? There's no 
mention of "non-dual Shaivite Hindusim" in Patanjali's 
Yoga Sutras. "Hinduism" wasn't even invented in Patajali's 
time. If it was, he would have mentioned it, would he not?

> Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu reaction to Nagarjuna's 
> Madhyamaka.
> 
What does that have to do with Patanjali?

There's no pre-Buddhist "Mantrayana" in Indian history 
either. You're confused - Mantrayana came much later with 
the tantric alchemists during the Gupta Age. In fact, 
there's no "pre-Buddhist" history in India. Indian history 
begins with the historical Buddha - everything before that 
is pre-history. 

> One should not confuse advaita with advaya.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Richard J. Williams]

matrixmonitor wrote:
> --Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, 
>
There's no "impersonalist" viewpoint in Patanjali's 
Yoga Sutras. Patanjali precisely refers to Ishvara, 
the God of Yoga, as I pointed out. Saivite Hinduism 
came much later than Patanjali who lived in 200 B.C. 
before most of the Upanishads were composed.

> ...the bottom line is what is the connection to 
> such entities and PHYSICAL reality? 
>
You just spouted the materialist point of view - but
you've confused it with the transcedentalist view. The
word transcendental in the Upanishads means "beyond the 
matereial world".

Also, there's no mention of a Krishna, Vasudeva, or 
Balarama in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras - that came much 
later with the rise of the Bhakti sects.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Richard J. Williams]

> > According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller, 
> > higher than even the subtlest relative.
> >
Billy wrote:
> In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort 
> Prakriti, wherein is found his immanent nature Brahma, the 
> son, the Creative intelligence behind and controlling the 
> Gunas/Prakriti.
>
There's no mention in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras of Ishvara "and 
his consort" - that idea came much later with the rise of the 
tantric sects during the Gupta Age. The Yoga of Patanjali is 
based on the Sankhya or radical dualism - there's no shakti 
in it and no impersonal God, which if you think about it, is 
a contradiction in terms. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Vaj]

On May 9, 2007, at 2:21 PM, qntmpkt wrote:


--Thanks, Vaj, as usual!. Your analysis, though astute, is typically
Vajian erudite and consistent with history; but I'm into the NOW
reality of which M-Fields are predominant.


I think the M-fields are still existing in all of the above with an  
authentic master of any of these traditions. The problem is 'can most  
people differentiate between spiritual placebo effects from authentic  
transmission?' Either way, the key is maintaining the transmission  
thru guru-yoga: uniting your consciousness with the masters and see  
what happens. If one has that link, one is connected to the M-field,  
irrespective of time or distance.



Origins make no
difference. By analogy, Toyota is surpassing the other auto makers
in sales. This is significant!. ...but I don't care about the
origins of Toyota.
If we look at the major influences NOW, we can categorize them as a
simple list: for example a. the TM "Movement" on its last legs...
(too bad), b. SSRS, c. Ammachi; d. Tibetan Buddhism as a whole e. Neo-
Advaita; etc.
These types of Movements are what I'm interested in, not an
academic analysis of their origins in relationship to the original
founders. Make sense?.


Somewhat. It's vital to understand and appreciate where, why and how  
they differ.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[qntmpkt]

--Thanks, Vaj, as usual!.  Your analysis, though astute, is typically 
Vajian erudite and consistent with history; but I'm into the NOW 
reality of which M-Fields are predominant.  Origins make no 
difference.  By analogy, Toyota is surpassing the other auto makers 
in sales.  This is significant!.  ...but I don't care about the 
origins of Toyota.
  If we look at the major influences NOW, we can categorize them as a 
simple list:  for example a. the TM "Movement" on its last legs...
(too bad), b. SSRS, c. Ammachi; d. Tibetan Buddhism as a whole e. Neo-
Advaita; etc.
  These types of Movements are what I'm interested in, not an 
academic analysis of their origins in relationship to the original 
founders. Make sense?.
  Thanks again! PS. You could, perhaps, enjoy a lively exchange of 
ideas with Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman.
.


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's only because the three are related in terms of emergence. 
Non- 
> dual Shaivite Hinduism is likely derived from Zhang Zhung rishi's 
pre- 
> Buddhist Mantrayana and Mahasandhi. Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu  
> reaction to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka .
> 
> One should not confuse advaita with advaya.
> 
> On May 8, 2007, at 6:20 PM, matrixmonitor wrote:
> 
> > --Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3
> > circles into an overlapping area: 1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in
> > here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
> > Then refer to the standard Advaita-Vedanta texts, such as that 
Yoga
> > Vasistha, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi recorded messages, 
and
> > countless Buddhist texts.
> > Conjectures regarding the nature of the highest, or most powerful
> > relative entities, such as Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Yahweh, etc; 
are
> > speculative. IMO, the bottom line is what is the connection to 
such
> > entities and PHYSICAL reality? If there's no connection, then
> > discussions regarding such Personalities are academic. That is,
> > unless individuals have a real, personal connection to Them on an
> > inner plane level.
> > But basically, unless Krishna can give me a good stock market
> > prediction, I'm not interested in relating to Him.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Vaj]

That's only because the three are related in terms of emergence. Non- 
dual Shaivite Hinduism is likely derived from Zhang Zhung rishi's pre- 
Buddhist Mantrayana and Mahasandhi. Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu  
reaction to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka .


One should not confuse advaita with advaya.

On May 8, 2007, at 6:20 PM, matrixmonitor wrote:


--Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3
circles into an overlapping area: 1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in
here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
Then refer to the standard Advaita-Vedanta texts, such as that Yoga
Vasistha, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi recorded messages, and
countless Buddhist texts.
Conjectures regarding the nature of the highest, or most powerful
relative entities, such as Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Yahweh, etc; are
speculative. IMO, the bottom line is what is the connection to such
entities and PHYSICAL reality? If there's no connection, then
discussions regarding such Personalities are academic. That is,
unless individuals have a real, personal connection to Them on an
inner plane level.
But basically, unless Krishna can give me a good stock market
prediction, I'm not interested in relating to Him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Robert Gimbel]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3 
> circles into an overlapping area:  1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in 
> here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
>  Then refer to the standard Advaita-Vedanta texts, such as that 
Yoga 
> Vasistha, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi recorded messages, 
and 
> countless Buddhist texts.
>  Conjectures regarding the nature of the highest, or most powerful
> relative entities, such as Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Yahweh, etc; 
are 
> speculative. IMO, the bottom line is what is the connection to such 
> entities and PHYSICAL reality?  If there's no connection, then 
> discussions regarding such Personalities are academic.  That is, 
> unless individuals have a real, personal connection to Them on an 
> inner plane level.
>   But basically, unless Krishna can give me a good stock market 
> prediction, I'm not interested in relating to Him. 
> 
 Well, I'm not sure if Krishna is that interested in the Stock 
Market, as you seem to be, 
But, nonetheless, I have had experience with feelings, or intuitions, 
which seem to come from a higher place.
It's been hard for me to trust these intuitions, when they come,
But they are quite accurate.
The market basically goes, from over optimistic, to over pessimistic.
Eliot wave theory.
So, you basically tune into the natural rythmns of the thing.
Also, you can tune into certain entities, that play the market, for 
their own personal gain. Short term stuff...
But, playing with the OEX index, can be fun, if you have the nerve, 
to follow your gut feeling, intuition, and if you feel it comes from 
a higher place, maybe it does?
r.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[matrixmonitor]

--Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3 
circles into an overlapping area:  1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in 
here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
 Then refer to the standard Advaita-Vedanta texts, such as that Yoga 
Vasistha, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi recorded messages, and 
countless Buddhist texts.
 Conjectures regarding the nature of the highest, or most powerful
relative entities, such as Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Yahweh, etc; are 
speculative. IMO, the bottom line is what is the connection to such 
entities and PHYSICAL reality?  If there's no connection, then 
discussions regarding such Personalities are academic.  That is, 
unless individuals have a real, personal connection to Them on an 
inner plane level.
  But basically, unless Krishna can give me a good stock market 
prediction, I'm not interested in relating to Him. 

- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
>  wrote:
> 
> > >
> > According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller, 
> > higher than even the subtlest relative.
> 
> In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort Prakriti,
> wherein is found his immanent nature Brahma, the son, the Creative
> intelligence behind and controlling the Gunas/Prakriti.
> 
> 
>  God Brahm is the 
> > Transcendental Person in the Upanishads, the Purusha, who 
> > is beyond this creation, that is, transcendental to the 
> > contituents of nature.
> 
> Thanks for recognizing that...that is, transcendental to the gunas 
or
> the three worlds (physical, astral, casual) but still manifest! As a
> 'person' he/she is limited to time and space in his/her manifest
> condition.
> 
> 
>  What you have just described is a 
> > type of adwaitan illusionism which denies the 'personality' 
> > of God. You might consider this and avoid the error of 
> > thinking that God Brahm is just an illusion, a part and 
> > parcel of the relative.
> 
> Brahm or Brahma is still subject to time and space, only Brahman is
> Absolute...,his reflection (being Brahma, the second 'person' of the
> trinity) in Prakriti is limited to the Manvantara.
> 
> In Pralaya God's reflection Brahma dissolves back into the 
unmanifest
> and Mother Nature, now called *mula-prakriti* rests in Pralaya as 
well
> holding all the seeds of future incarnations.
> 
>  But in fact, God is the Transcendent 
> > Purusha in a Supreme Person - that's what 'God' means - 
> > a supreme person, the Ishvara of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.
> 
> As MMY says, God is both personal (immanent-all pervading *in* 
creation)
> and impersonal beyond all creation-both.
>  
> > The argument that God is the highest of the relative is 
> > not a convincing argument.
> 
> He is both...when MMY talks about God consciousness this is what he 
is
> talking about. This 'highest relative' can take any form but the 
state
> of consciousness called God Consciousness is merging with the Solar
> Deity who is all pervading in creation and is its animating power 
thru
> the laws of nature or Prakriti. The trinity.
> 
>  Badarayana, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, 
> > Madhva, and Vallabha all agree on this. Of all the 
> > Upanishadic thinkers, only Shankara places the Purusha
> > among the relative illusions called Maya.
> 
> He is both
> 
> 
> snip>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >
> According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller, 
> higher than even the subtlest relative.

In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort Prakriti,
wherein is found his immanent nature Brahma, the son, the Creative
intelligence behind and controlling the Gunas/Prakriti.


 God Brahm is the 
> Transcendental Person in the Upanishads, the Purusha, who 
> is beyond this creation, that is, transcendental to the 
> contituents of nature.

Thanks for recognizing that...that is, transcendental to the gunas or
the three worlds (physical, astral, casual) but still manifest! As a
'person' he/she is limited to time and space in his/her manifest
condition.


 What you have just described is a 
> type of adwaitan illusionism which denies the 'personality' 
> of God. You might consider this and avoid the error of 
> thinking that God Brahm is just an illusion, a part and 
> parcel of the relative.

Brahm or Brahma is still subject to time and space, only Brahman is
Absolute...,his reflection (being Brahma, the second 'person' of the
trinity) in Prakriti is limited to the Manvantara.

In Pralaya God's reflection Brahma dissolves back into the unmanifest
and Mother Nature, now called *mula-prakriti* rests in Pralaya as well
holding all the seeds of future incarnations.

 But in fact, God is the Transcendent 
> Purusha in a Supreme Person - that's what 'God' means - 
> a supreme person, the Ishvara of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

As MMY says, God is both personal (immanent-all pervading *in* creation)
and impersonal beyond all creation-both.
 
> The argument that God is the highest of the relative is 
> not a convincing argument.

He is both...when MMY talks about God consciousness this is what he is
talking about. This 'highest relative' can take any form but the state
of consciousness called God Consciousness is merging with the Solar
Deity who is all pervading in creation and is its animating power thru
the laws of nature or Prakriti. The trinity.

 Badarayana, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, 
> Madhva, and Vallabha all agree on this. Of all the 
> Upanishadic thinkers, only Shankara places the Purusha
> among the relative illusions called Maya.

He is both


snip>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Richard J. Williams]

> > According to Patanjali, the process of Yoga isolates 
> > the Purusha from the prakriti, using the Eightfold Path.
> >
Billy wrote:
> Yes, but there is the Purusha immanent or manifest IN 
> creation, this is Brahm or the highest relative...
>
According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller, 
higher than even the subtlest relative. God Brahm is the 
Transcendental Person in the Upanishads, the Purusha, who 
is beyond this creation, that is, transcendental to the 
contituents of nature. What you have just described is a 
type of adwaitan illusionism which denies the 'personality' 
of God. You might consider this and avoid the error of 
thinking that God Brahm is just an illusion, a part and 
parcel of the relative. But in fact, God is the Transcendent 
Purusha in a Supreme Person - that's what 'God' means - 
a supreme person, the Ishvara of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. 
The argument that God is the highest of the relative is 
not a convincing argument. Badarayana, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, 
Madhva, and Vallabha all agree on this. Of all the 
Upanishadic thinkers, only Shankara places the Purusha
among the relative illusions called Maya. Perhaps he was
very impressed with the 'Appearance Only' theory of Shakya 
the Muni. Why do you suppose that Shankara was opposed by 
all the other Upanishadic philosophers, when in fact all
the Upanishadic thinkers were transcendentalists?

Y.S. I. 24:

'klesa karma vipaka sayair aparam
rstah purusa visesa isvarah'

'That unique indwelling omnipresence that is never tainted 
nor touched by the ground of actions and their reactions, 
which afflict ignorant individuals; that which is left-over 
after the ego-ignorance-collapse; that special inner ruler 
or intelligence which is unconditioned by time and whose 
will alone prevails even in the body. In it there is oneness, 
never divided. It is therefore beyond ignorance and its progeny.'

Swami Venketesananda Saraswati on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras:

http://www.dailyreadings.com/sutras_1.htm

Maharishi with Swami Venkatesananda Saraswati:

http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/vent.jpg

> Yes, but there is the Purusha immanent or manifest IN 
> creation, this is Brahm or the highest relative (MMY 
> calls it God consciousness) and there is the Unmanifest 
> Brahman beyond creation, (MMY calls this Unity) his 
> reflection is IN creation as the *manifest* Purusha, it 
> can take any form but is essentially the foundation of 
> all manifest creation.
> 
> Each Solar system has a solar deity or purusha which 
> animates that creation, we are a part of the Immanent 
> Purusha. The Unmanifest Brahman is the foundation of 
> ALL Solar systems and ALL Galaxies/Universes etc. Each 
> Purusha/Creator is limited by time and space. Brahman 
> is not!
> 
> Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest 
> Purusha and the Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That 
> makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat the son Brahma or 
> creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman. SAT-TAT-OM.
>
Maybe so, Billy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (for Richard J. Williams)

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
> For the benefit of all in the forum, we would 
> like to know where you got all of your knowledge
> of the Yoga Sutras?
> 
> > According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal 
> > world is based on three constituents, three gunas born 
> > of nature, which make up the field relative field of 
> > prakriti. Totally separate from this is the Purusha, 
> > the Absolute field.
> >
Maharishi gave us this information in many lectures which 
I have on tape. According to Maharishi, the Vedic scriptures 
deal with the three modes of material nature, the three gunas; 
in order to become self-realized, you must transcend the three 
modes in pure spiritual conciousness, free from duality and be 
free from all conceptions of acquisition and preservation. This 
is the keystone in the arch to understanding the Bhagavad Gita, 
Chapter 2 Verse 45: actions are in all cases concerned with the 
three gunas; yoga is being free from these three constituents.

> > According to Patanjali, the process of Yoga isolates 
> > the Purusha from the prakriti, using the Eightfold Path.
> >
The word kaivalya means isolation in Sanskrit. 

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon:
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

Y.S. II. 25:

'tadabhavat samyoga bhavo hanam
tad drseh kaivalyam'

Swami Venketesananda Saraswati on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras:

http://www.dailyreadings.com/sutras_1.htm
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>  (snip)> 
> > Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest Purusha and the
> > Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat
> > the son Brahma or creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman. SAT-TAT-OM.
> >
>   Is that kind of like 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit?'?

Exactly, think of a blue crystal ball (as prakriti or Mother Nature),
now visualize a white light shining into the crystal ball,  the light
in the crystal ball is now blue!

The Father represents the white light or Brahman, the Son the blue
light which is the white light of Brahman reflected off of the blue
crystal ball (prakriti).

The blue light in this analogy represents the immanent purusha or God
manifest, of which we are a small part (sparks of the one flame), when
we become Self Realized we realize the spark, when God realized the
flame, when cosmic...Brahman, which is the unmanifest Absolute.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)> 
> Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest Purusha and the
> Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat
> the son Brahma or creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman. SAT-TAT-OM.
>
  Is that kind of like 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit?'?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (for Richard J. Williams)

[John]

Namaste Richard,

I'm impressed with your knowledge.  In my early years of meditation, 
I posed some of my experiences with my TM teacher.  He was not able 
to give a comprehensive answer like you did.

For the benefit of all in the forum, we would like to know where you 
got all of your knowledge of the Yoga Sutras?

Regards,

John R.








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> >...the phenomenal world is based on consciousness,
> > as Patanjali has discussed in his yoga sutras.
> >
> According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal 
> world is based on three constituents, three gunas born 
> of nature, which make up the field relative field of 
> prakriti. Totally separate from this is the Purusha, 
> the Absolute field. According to Patanjali, the process 
> of Yoga isolates the Purusha from the prakriti, using 
> the Eightfold Path.
> 
> The notion that conciousness is the basis of reality came 
> much later with the 'Conciousness Only' school of the 
> Vijnanavadins such as Vasabandhu, Asanga, and Shankara 
> the Adwaitin and his teacher Guadapadacharya, the first 
> systematic commnentator on Vedanta.
> 
> According to Shankara, the phenomenal world is based on 
> Maya, a category which causes us to see the phenomnal 
> world as real, when in fact, it is covered by ignorance 
> - we do not see the real, but only a representation of 
> the real, which is not unreal, because it is presented 
> to us, yet neither is it real in the absolute sense.
> 
> > Although not mentioned in his sutras, I believe 
> > some of his experiences of the siddhis pertain 
> > exclusively to the dream consciousness.
> >
> The notion of the dream conciousness, John, did not 
> occur in Indian philosophy until the time of Gaudapada 
> who composed the Mandukhya Karika on Mandukya Upanishad. 
> Shankara commented on Mandukya and took this notion to 
> a higher level by introducing the idea of Maya.
> 
> > Specifically, through the use of the basic TM 
> > technique, I have personally experienced the 
> > siddhis of being as small as an atom, being 
> < as tall as a mountain and flying in the air. 
> > I have even seen the ethereal kundalini in 
> > the base chakra. All of these I have seen
> > in my dream experiences, either soon after 
> > meditation or during the sleeping hours.
> >
> Maybe so, but what you see in the dream state is 
> similar to what you see in the waking state. All 
> experiences of phenomena are conditioned by the 
> senses, whither you are awake or asleep. For example, 
> you might see a theif in the night, but at dawn you 
> realize what you saw was a fence post. The senses 
> are not able to percieve the real because of ignorance, 
> like a viel, which covers over our perceptions.
> 
> > MMY, however, is taking the sutras to another 
> > level by showing that the flying siddhi can be 
> > experienced during the waking consciousness.
> >
> > Ultimately, Patanjali (as well as MMY) is trying 
> > to say that the so called reality or phenomenal 
> > existence is really like the dream experience.
> >
> Although MMY wants to be in the tradition of Shankara 
> and Adwaita, MMY does not emphasize the idea of Maya 
> very much. Being of the Yogic tradition, MMY is more 
> likley to support the dualistic notion of the 
> separateness of prakriti and Purusha, and the idea of 
> the gunas born of nature, as well as the Sankhya idea 
> of the thirty-two evolutes or tatvas.
> 
> > In this scenario, it is highly likely that whatever
> > we desire in the waking consciousness will come 
> > true as they magically manifest in our dreams.
> >
> Patanjali agrees with Shakya the Muni that desire is 
> an impediment to realization. In order to know the 
> Absolute we must avoid striving. Desire and goal-driven 
> activities are counter-productive on the Eightfold Path. 
> In the Bhagavad Gita you will read that we have a right 
> to take actions, but we do not have the right to the 
> fruits of our actions. Actions, is all cases, are the 
> result of the play of the gunas. Karma is the driving 
> force which propels us to act due to past actions - but 
> we are not really the author of our actions, they are
> determined by the forces of nature. 
> 
> > Which brings us to the final question: what is 
> > reality?
> >
> According to Shankara, the real is Brahman, which created 
> the manifest nature, and infused it with the contituents 
> of motion called gunas. Everything else is Maya, like a 
> dream, in which we see relative phenonena and mistake it 
> for the real. Just like we see a snake on the ground at 
> night, but when day breaks we realize that the snake is 
> but a coiled up piece of rope. We often do this because 
> the senses are not able to actually percieve the real 
> directly. Brahman however, is not an object of cognition. 
> We need a special sense to realize Brahman - that special 
> sense is conciousness.
> 
> Guadapada on Mandu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> >...the phenomenal world is based on consciousness,
> > as Patanjali has discussed in his yoga sutras.
> >
> According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal 
> world is based on three constituents, three gunas born 
> of nature, which make up the field relative field of 
> prakriti. Totally separate from this is the Purusha, 
> the Absolute field. According to Patanjali, the process 
> of Yoga isolates the Purusha from the prakriti, using 
> the Eightfold Path.

Yes, but there is the Purusha immanent or manifest IN creation, this
is Brahm or the highest relative (MMY calls it God consciousness)and
there is the Unmanifest Brahman beyond creation, (MMY calls this
Unity) his reflection is IN creation as the *manifest* Purusha, it can
take any form but is essentially the foundation of all manifest creation.

Each Solar system has a solar deity or purusha which animates that
creation, we are a part of the Immanent Purusha. The Unmanifest
Brahman is the foundation of ALL Solar systems and ALL
Galaxies/Universes etc. Each Purusha/Creator is limited by time and
space. Brahman is not!

Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest Purusha and the
Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat
the son Brahma or creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman. SAT-TAT-OM.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
>...the phenomenal world is based on consciousness,
> as Patanjali has discussed in his yoga sutras.
>
According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal 
world is based on three constituents, three gunas born 
of nature, which make up the field relative field of 
prakriti. Totally separate from this is the Purusha, 
the Absolute field. According to Patanjali, the process 
of Yoga isolates the Purusha from the prakriti, using 
the Eightfold Path.

The notion that conciousness is the basis of reality came 
much later with the 'Conciousness Only' school of the 
Vijnanavadins such as Vasabandhu, Asanga, and Shankara 
the Adwaitin and his teacher Guadapadacharya, the first 
systematic commnentator on Vedanta.

According to Shankara, the phenomenal world is based on 
Maya, a category which causes us to see the phenomnal 
world as real, when in fact, it is covered by ignorance 
- we do not see the real, but only a representation of 
the real, which is not unreal, because it is presented 
to us, yet neither is it real in the absolute sense.

> Although not mentioned in his sutras, I believe 
> some of his experiences of the siddhis pertain 
> exclusively to the dream consciousness.
>
The notion of the dream conciousness, John, did not 
occur in Indian philosophy until the time of Gaudapada 
who composed the Mandukhya Karika on Mandukya Upanishad. 
Shankara commented on Mandukya and took this notion to 
a higher level by introducing the idea of Maya.

> Specifically, through the use of the basic TM 
> technique, I have personally experienced the 
> siddhis of being as small as an atom, being 
< as tall as a mountain and flying in the air. 
> I have even seen the ethereal kundalini in 
> the base chakra. All of these I have seen
> in my dream experiences, either soon after 
> meditation or during the sleeping hours.
>
Maybe so, but what you see in the dream state is 
similar to what you see in the waking state. All 
experiences of phenomena are conditioned by the 
senses, whither you are awake or asleep. For example, 
you might see a theif in the night, but at dawn you 
realize what you saw was a fence post. The senses 
are not able to percieve the real because of ignorance, 
like a viel, which covers over our perceptions.

> MMY, however, is taking the sutras to another 
> level by showing that the flying siddhi can be 
> experienced during the waking consciousness.
>
> Ultimately, Patanjali (as well as MMY) is trying 
> to say that the so called reality or phenomenal 
> existence is really like the dream experience.
>
Although MMY wants to be in the tradition of Shankara 
and Adwaita, MMY does not emphasize the idea of Maya 
very much. Being of the Yogic tradition, MMY is more 
likley to support the dualistic notion of the 
separateness of prakriti and Purusha, and the idea of 
the gunas born of nature, as well as the Sankhya idea 
of the thirty-two evolutes or tatvas.

> In this scenario, it is highly likely that whatever
> we desire in the waking consciousness will come 
> true as they magically manifest in our dreams.
>
Patanjali agrees with Shakya the Muni that desire is 
an impediment to realization. In order to know the 
Absolute we must avoid striving. Desire and goal-driven 
activities are counter-productive on the Eightfold Path. 
In the Bhagavad Gita you will read that we have a right 
to take actions, but we do not have the right to the 
fruits of our actions. Actions, is all cases, are the 
result of the play of the gunas. Karma is the driving 
force which propels us to act due to past actions - but 
we are not really the author of our actions, they are
determined by the forces of nature. 

> Which brings us to the final question: what is 
> reality?
>
According to Shankara, the real is Brahman, which created 
the manifest nature, and infused it with the contituents 
of motion called gunas. Everything else is Maya, like a 
dream, in which we see relative phenonena and mistake it 
for the real. Just like we see a snake on the ground at 
night, but when day breaks we realize that the snake is 
but a coiled up piece of rope. We often do this because 
the senses are not able to actually percieve the real 
directly. Brahman however, is not an object of cognition. 
We need a special sense to realize Brahman - that special 
sense is conciousness.

Guadapada on Mandukya Upanishad:

17. Just as in the dark a rope whose nature has not been 
fully ascertained is imagined to be various different 
things such as a snake, a line of water and so forth; in 
exactly the same way the Self is imagined in various 
different ways.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html