--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptyb...@...> >wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <emptybill@> >wrote: > > <snip> > > > by discussing the sanyama practice as a advance > > > development through using "meaning" as a more subtle > > > value than the beginning practice of "sound without > > > meaning" and "learning to focus a deeper form of > > > attention" rather than "only favoring the mantra". > >
Yeah it's true. At the time he gave really great lectures on samyama. Spoke of this all directly and the yoga sutras and process of using sutras. Samadhi, dharna, dhyana. Do TM, introduce the sutra, sit quietly. Very clear theory and practice lectures. With studied analysis, examples & metaphors and his humor. Essentially what you write here and below is the nature as he was saying it. These kind of lectures disappeared after they were given, about in 1977. Was like the key to everything was in them. So obviously they were not given or used after that. Would have given the trademark over to public domain if those kind of lectures came public. And generically unleashed all kinds of people with all kinds of intent using the practice broadly. So kept a handle on it and trademarked it. The lectures were appropriate at the time, but then the whole imparting went over to, "... the knowledge is in the experience" to everything asked. That is what i saw at the time. -Doug in FF > > Dunno, it wasn't explained exactly that way > > when I learned the TM-Sidhis, but it was > > certainly made clear that the point of the > > sutras was their meaning, the intention the > > words expressed, rather than the sound value > > per se. That distinction from the mantra was > > emphasized. So it was never a problem for me. > > (Easier to remember in English too.) > > > > You are pointing out the way it was done and that in fact it did > indeed work for most people. I observed the same thing from watching > the citizens course. People were indeed told that the focus was on the > "meaning" rather than the mantric sound. > > However I must admit that I was told in advance (by other Governors) > that the sanyama technique was the exact opposite of our training in > the mantra technique. Or as they succinctly put it - "we do exactly > what we were originally told not to do - hold attention on an object > of attention (dharana) and entertain the "meaning" of that object of > attention. > > As a consequence, my reaction to learning the English was satisfaction > rather than consternation - precisely because I already had an > understanding that the citizens did not yet have. This is why I think > that a little extra explanation would have helped. > > For instance: > > 1. I had studied the Yoga Sutras for about 10 years, (1968-1978) > including learning Classical Patanjala Yoga theory from a European > Buddhologist in collegetown. However I was still puzzled at how to > conjoin dharana, dhyana and samadhi into sanyama. Most scholars of the > time did not see sanyama as a tying-together (ie: synthesis or > "placing together") but rather as the progressive deepening of dharana > (as a form of fixed attention). It is the Vaj school of mystical > oblivion in shrinking intellection. My Jesuit Buddhologist teacher was > trained in Husserl's phenomenology and Heidegger's > post-phenomenological quest for "Being-as-such" and considered these > scholars to offer a superficial and faulty analysis. Maharishi showed > me a way to tie-together (san = with, together) (yama=string or tie) > the holding (dharana) with the seeing (dhyana <from dhi to see>) and > the placing together (samadhi). > > 2. As far as the difference between mantra and sutra, the classical > traditions of Yoga, both Hindu and Buddhist, define the sense-powers > (the five jnanendriya or five-vijnana) as faculties that simply > register the data of the sensorium. They are considered to be > inherently non-conceptual. As a result, the mantra, as a sound value, > is understood to be a non-conceptual direct perception. The mantra, as > non-conceptual sound, does not require an added layer of conceptual > meaning to function as a "transcending object" during meditation. The > bija mantra are in fact used precisely for their (non-conceptual) > sound value. Confusion can arise because they are also human speech > sounds, and as such, they are also some of the most intimate values in > human consciousness. > > 3.The sutras are understood mainly as bearers of meaning significant > because they can also cause attention to dwell, deepen and enfold into > the objective referents of their "meaning". This occurs without regard > to whether "objectness" is cosmological, (surya), physical > (kurma-nadi) or subjective (buddhi and. purusha). > > Perhaps this is a way to understand that the way we were introduced to > the sanyama practice was consistent the tradition and not a rip-off. > If we lacked this kind of supporting knowledge then we could always > decide that we were the only one's who "really" knew what a rip-off it > was. > > Ignorance aggressively parading around as knowledge is a wonder to > watch but if it tries to burn us out of malice we need to annihilate it. > x
