|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | We were having such a nice discussion of these topics before the previous
thread froze that I thought I'd launch a new one on the same topic. (Brother
Bruce tells me that these threads automatically freeze when they reach
eight pages, so I'm assuming that the former thread died from software
poisoning.)
I had a long post for this based on Taimni's commentary on the Yoga Sutra,
but I want to think about it more for now.
Soooooo, I guess this is a rather dull post?
Well, okay, here's a question: How closely connected are the Gita and the
YS. At points, they feel like entirely separate philosophies, and at other
points, the connections seem clear. Commentators on the sutras, of course, often
make connections to the Gita.
| |
| | |
| Dear BG:
Bhagavadgita is a summary of Upanishads, which are the summaries of Vedas. They are also called as Bhagavadgitopanishad, and Vedanta, respectively.
Bhagavadgita is a part of Mahabharat around 3200 BC. And, Shree Patanjalayogadarsha is after Shree Gautam Buddha.
Bhagavadgita and Yogasutras are Identical in philosophy. That is Advaita Vedanta. BG describes various paths in many chapters. Patanjali describes the same in a very succint way without using any names, verbs, deity names, or whatever. However, both of them ultimately point to the Moksha (BG) or Kaivalya (Patanjali).
Some parts they are completely identical. For exmple: BG = abhyasena tu kaunteya vairagyena cha grihyate. Patanjali = abhyasavairagyabhyam tannirodha.
Similarly, yamas and niyamas which are exactly and succintly speicfied by Patanjali are spread all over in BG.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Thanks, Brother Neel.
My other question dealt with Ishvara. A commentary that I am reading
suggests that an individual purusha can evolve to become an Ishvara (Purusha
Vishesha), but that it would be different from the Ishvara of our world.
I find this puzzling, in the sense that the commentator says clearly that
there are different Ishvaras for different solar systems. (This is Taimni's
commentary on YS). I have been thinking of Ishvara as unique, so that
so that the evolution of an individual purusha brings it to oneness with
Ishvara rather than leading it to become an independent Ishvara.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
|
I also got a question here. Im so confused with the Person “Patanjali” and his 8 fold path. Even Buddha is named as Patanjali in some books (A synonym I think) and the core of Buddhism is the 8fold path to Nirvana., But Who is this person “Patanjali” who come in Yoga Sutra??? He is not Krishna, Not Arjuna, Not Ishwara.. Who is he ???/
 | |
| | |
|
And another question., I don’t know when I will stop bothering you
Im just confused., Hindusm Finds Samadhi as the final goal to reach if someone is seeking freedom (Correct me if I’m wrong) But Buddhism goes one phase further and it finds Nirwana as the final goal., According to Buddhism, you have to reach Nirvana to get out of this infinite loop of rebirth., (Means everything has its own reason. We reborn due to a reason. When we destroy the reason (klesha) no reason for the rebirth.
In Hindusm, do you say when a person reaches Samadhi, he can stop the rebirth.? or he has to go one step further?
| |
| | |
| For BG: Purushavishesha Ishvara in the Patanjali is ONLY one entiry. Patanjali says, sa eshaH poorveshaamapi guru kaalenaanavachchedat. That means that Ishvara is the guru of all gurus (source of all knowledge) and this is true regardless of time and space (because space and time are kind of two sides of the same coin.) So, there is NO different Purushavishesha Ishvara for different solar systems, which themselves can be hundreds of them by assumption or feel. Now, I have not studied Taimini, neither probably will. However, for metaphorical reasons, there will be no harm in stating that there is one Ishvara of ONE's own solar system, which is like a Presiding Deity of that Solar System (such as one for Rain, etc.), and then when realizes that one goes further to the ONE Universal Purushavishesha Ishvara.
For Tushara: Buddhishm is NOT one step ahead of Vedic or Patanjali. It is actually a subset of it. Patanjali was a Sage who lived probably around 300 ad., and he organized succintly the entire Yoga Philosophy in about 200 aphorisms. Since his work is of an extremely scientific, and complete, and brief nature, it replaced one of the previous Sciences of Philosophies (which was similar) by Patanjali's work. In Indian Philosophy, a new work can be added or original work replaced by another version of a similar work, and it is NOT done by an organization such as a church. It just happens. It is like everybody likes Starbucks coffee which later replaces some other version of Italian coffee.
Now, Samadhi has 3 aspects in patanjali. The first one is the 8th limb, and this is only a stage where one realizes the self due to completion of meditation. The second one is where one is established only in one's own self, that is Sabeejja Samadhi. And, the final one is Nirbeeja Samadhi which is same as Nirvana of Buddhism, who got that idea from Vedas and called it as Nirvana. In Vedas, the same is called as Moksha, Kaivalya, and also Nirvana. Nirvana is not a new word which Buddhism created, but only used it. In Patanjali's last aphorism, all these are called as
gunanam pratiprasavah - mergining into the godhood due to retractionn of all gunas, without any further rebirth.
kaivalyam - absolute stage
svaroopapratishtha - one real own unchangeable nature, that is Univeral Godhood
chitishaktiH - Universal Consciousness which is the substratum of anything whcih is perceived.
There are various names to this same thing in ShrimadBhagavadgita, which came around 3000 years before Gautam Buddha. The difference in Buddhism and previous Vedic Philosophy is that Gautam Buddha relaxed the strict rules of the Rites and Conduct which resulted post Vedic Times, and therefore Buddhism became popular. But, the same very reason later removed Buddhism from India, because this relaxation of rules later led into Monastery Corruption. This corruption did not take place everywhere, though.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-01-21 10:40 AM
For BG: Purushavishesha Ishvara in the Patanjali is ONLY one entiry. Patanjali says, sa eshaH poorveshaamapi guru kaalenaanavachchedat. That means that Ishvara is the guru of all gurus (source of all knowledge) and this is true regardless of time and space (because space and time are kind of two sides of the same coin.) So, there is NO different Purushavishesha Ishvara for different solar systems, which themselves can be hundreds of them by assumption or feel. Now, I have not studied Taimini, neither probably will. However, for metaphorical reasons, there will be no harm in stating that there is one Ishvara of ONE's own solar system, which is like a Presiding Deity of that Solar System (such as one for Rain, etc.), and then when realizes that one goes further to the ONE Universal Purushavishesha Ishvara.
gunanam pratiprasavah - mergining into the godhood due to retractionn of all gunas, without any further rebirth.
kaivalyam - absolute stage
svaroopapratishtha - one real own unchangeable nature, that is Univeral Godhood
chitishaktiH - Universal Consciousness which is the substratum of anything whcih is perceived.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Thanks yet again Neel. I feel very lucky to be able to ask you these questions.
Of course, I have another now.
With regard to the evolution of the purusha to Kaivalyam, what is the relationship
of the purusha to the Purusha Vishesha at that stage? Your translation of the
last sutra (above) refers to "merging into the godhood". Does this mean that the
purusha no longer perceives a separation of itself from Ishavara (Tat tvam asi,
Sarvam khalvidam Brahma) ?
| |
| | |
| Good question BG. Just before the merging Purusha (individual self) perceivves (NOT via the senses, but via Chittam, that is consciouslness) that Individual Self is only a Reflection of the Universal Self that is PurushaVishesha. And, there really never existed the Individual Self exccept due to the ignorance (avidya) or the asmita (ego). When, all the previous karmas are burnt, then the individual soul merges into the Purushavishes and there is NOTHING to perceive anymore, as there is NO perceiver. The perceiver, perception, and perceived all become one.
Quoting the last Sutram again, purushaarthashoonyaanam - for those whom no more work or purushartha left. Rest is same as what I wrote earlier.
I shall be giving the Speeches on Patanjali at the Sun and Moon Yoga Studio in Feb, Mar, April and May. See www.sunandmoonstudio.com for dates.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| neel you should definitely write that book! great answer! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Neel, Thanks. I think that Taimni is not in line with most other commentators
on this subject.
| |
| | |
| Yes, that is possible if he comes from the lineage of certain philosophers who misunderstood Patanjali Sutras as the Dualistic Philosophy due to the Introduction of Ishvara (GOD) into previous Samkhya Philosophy. As I explained Patanjali is actually a non dualistic philosophy, and the context of Ishvara is as I explained before. However, I must confess that I do not know Taimini that well. If I happen to study him, I can explain using his perspective.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Yes, Taimni mentions the relationship to Samkhya and he's very specific in saying
that purushas remain separate even when they evolve to purusha vishesha. He's
very good in other areas of the sutras, at least in the sense of explaining the basic
ideas thoroughly. He gives much more detail than some of the other commentaries
that I have.
| |
| | |
|
Have you ever seen a ghost?
What do you guys think of Ghosts? Can they really exist?? Or is it only the week mind ??
I know that, after we die, Our souls will float till we reborn., Is that a ghost? But why only some people see ghosts?? I have never seen them. Are they in a different dimension that humans cannot see? But then what about some human 
I would like to know your thinking about ghosts, religious explanation too
| |
| | |
| Thurshara:
It is not good to think of Ghosts. However, since you asked for it, only once I am going to write:
Ghost is NOT something you see, I mean with the eyes. When a person dies, and the wishes are are not annihilated, the person is reborn using the mind left over from the previous birth. All this is covered already. Now, when the wishes are very strong and the suitable body is not yet formed to satisfy that wish, the Limbo State mind uses existing bodies to satisfy that wish. The bodies of week minded people are used, of course. So, the ghost is a limbo state mind with unfulfilled strong wishes. When it uses the body of an existing person, that person behaves in a ghostly way, for example, eat 4 pounds of ghee at one shot and enjoy it, and then later that person suffers due to the effect of such circumstances, such as a dysentry, etc. The later is called as 'Possessed'.
Neel Kulkarni
wwa.uthenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I've never seen a ghost nor someone possessed by one. I have
from time to time heard second-hand accounts of poltergeists
and such, but it's hard for me to make room in my mind for
such things.
Eating four pounds of Ghee at once sounds truly awful.
 | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
 
| Thushara - are there stories of ghosts from the tsunami in your area? I have heard there are lots of frightened people in some of the worst hit areas. It is amazing to me how some people feel a need to continue to live out a nightmare scenario that is over instead of moving on. On the other hand, I have had frightening situations (a car accident) that replayed over in my mind for several weeks so I know it is sometimes hard to get to that place. We apparently have ghosts in the building I work in but everyone has said they are all friendly  | |
| | |
| Thanks Kulkarnn for the explanation.,
Tourist Noooo.. Its not due to tsunami., If there are ghosts due to tsunami deaths, we will probably have no space to live. Its that I’m very scared but curious of ghosts though I’ve never seen them., People say they have seen them., But my mother always says its not ghosts .. its just their weak mind. I just wanted to know what religion says about life after death / Ghosts.
You must be having Caspers in your building Be friendly with them.
Edited by Thushara 2005-01-31 11:05 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | So, here's another question.
Yoga (and the Gita) teach nonattachment. How does this relate to one's
ambitions? It seems we should strive to do our work with commitment
and the pursuit of excellence, in line with the yama/niyamas. What about
the drive to have a better job or position? Or the drive to lead?
| |
| | |
| Now Brother Bay Guy is really getting interested or interesting:
All work done is due to previously expected results which one expects to give them happiness. So, first the desire to happiness, then the desire to join happiness with certain result or acitivy, and then the desire to perform that action, either in this birth or the previous. Now, when one actually does that acitivity, with non attachment, only the previous desire is worked out, when one does it with attachment, that is expecting some new fruit which means more of the same or a different one, more karma is created for new activity. So, when one does NOT do the previously desired acitivity, one is Restless as the mind will not let it happen. That is the Duty in which one is born. When one does the Duty but with attachment, it creates more work later. When one does it with detachment, it removes the old karma withhout creating new one. This is the Nishkaama karma, that is one without expecting fruits of action, and one which liberates.
When one does work with commitment, ambition, better job, whatever, it has to be in the context of the above parameters to be termed as Yoga, actually Karmayoga. It becomes difficult while doing the work, as the desire for fruits of action actually crops up unexpectedly or the ego crops up. Therefore, the need of Devotion to Supreme while doing work, and when work is done as worship, the Karmayoga becomes easier. That is why Devotee of a God is most favored by God, see Bhaktiyoga in Shrimad Bhagavadgita.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I think I understand the comments on karma in your reply, Brother Neel, but then
I wonder about a person who has resolved all previous karmas. Would this person
still work, and if so, would their be a striving to improve the work or the rewards
for the work? If not, it seems as if that person would just sit around letting other
people do all the work.
| |
| | |
| BB:
Interesting question: When the person has resolved all the previous karma, he shall be a person only in two cases:
a) This is the last birth with Spiritual Liberation (kaivalyam) in which all previous karma is burnt.
b) Or, this is an incarnation (which was previously merged into the absolute) which has desceneded for the benefit of the people.
In any case, after the Kaivalyam, the person only works for the benefit of others. While doing this work, there is NO fruits of action in the mind, it is only done for the benefit of others, as for that person there is NO expectation left. Also, benefit of others is an expectation which is of such a nature that the work itself is a worship, and not that the result of the actual work causes any instability in that person. For example, a saint may be mistreated, not responded to, or even bated by others/authrieites/people/etc. But, they just do their work, and go.
Any person in Flesh, whether incarnation, liberated in this birth, or NON liberated one CAN never stay without doing acitivity. Puroposefully NOT doing an acitivity itself is an activity, and can be more difficult than just doing an activity.
NeelKulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| >>Purposefully NOT doing an acitivity itself is an activity, and can be more difficult than just doing an activity.<< This kind of stuff makes the western mind boggle But I know a LOT of people who need to learn the skill of not doing. I asked a friend one day when she ever sat still and did nothing. "Oh," she said, "I can sit and read for hours!" Not the same! Reading is doing something! I, on the other hand, need to be doing more and not doing less. "Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until it goes away." is a quotation that has been attributed to various people - I think WC Fields is the originator. Anyway, that is how my body wants to be. Thank goodness my brain has a little bit of input or I'd be a couch potato for sure... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-02-05 2:03 PM
Any person in Flesh, whether incarnation, liberated in this birth, or NON liberated one CAN never stay without doing acitivity. Puroposefully NOT doing an acitivity itself is an activity, and can be more difficult than just doing an activity.
NeelKulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
In order to eliminate karma, action should be practiced without attachment. So the aim is
to have action without creating karma. ? In actions done without attachment, am I correct
to think that one is not thinking of advancing one's situation?
The reason that I am wondering about all this is my own observation that the most
effective people in a work environment are usually the ones who desire the outcome
toward which their work is directed. Those who don't care often seem to neglect their
responsibilities or to do them without much energy. I'm trying to understand how
great accomplishments can be made without generating a lot of karma.
| |
| | |
| Dear Tourist: I did not know whether you questioned me or just a comment with Couch Potato. Your comment is correcct in the material world. But, in the Spiritual Practice Body is only a means, and therefore becoming Couch Potato does not arrise. Doing NOTHING as an acitivy means: one is actually feeling like doing the activity but one is forcing oneself to NOT do it. For example, all the Yoga Practice is an acitvity to stop the fluctuations of the mind. But, when that is achieved, the result is a NON activity, not at the body level, but initially at mind level, then loss of desires and then loss of need of body as therre is no need of body to satisfy the desires of the mind.
Dear Bay Guy: I think now I understood your question a little better. See below:
a) It appears that the great works are achieved when there is an ambition. In most cases, the ambition is a part of previous karma and is part of that karma bearing the fruit. For example, getting olympic gold medal in running includes one having strong legs.
b) While doing work, one should have good intention, I mean when one has already decided to that activity, one should do it properly with all facels of it in the mind. However, the fruit or result of that action will NOT be same as one actually thought. Even if the actual apparent result is same, the effect of it may not be the same. For example: If one thought they should get noble prize in physics, a million dollars, and they actually took care of all facets to do that, they might achieve that fact. But, they still may become unhappier by that event in the actual life. See Patanjali: parinaamtaapsanskardukhair gunavrittivirodhachcha dukhameva sarvam vivekinah (I think second chapter).
c) Also, when one has ambbition for great effects, works towards that effect, and gets that effect, one must know what that effect is in totality. For example, becoming a millionaire means getting millions and then keeping the secure, and keeping them growing, and not loosing them, and later making sure they are used properly by the relatives, and not being abused by them, and not leading to other bad effects, etc.
d)Lastly, working without attachment is NOT easy. So, to do it with devotion is best, no doubt. But, to explain what is working without attachment is, let me try with an example:
One is trying to get a great position in the office, or trying to help others intensely, or trying to be a millionaire, or whatever.
Now, whether the effect is one or another, the person keeps happy face, that means the mental peace is NOT affected.
That is working without attachment.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-02-05 4:56 PM
The reason that I am wondering about all this is my own observation that the most
effective people in a work environment are usually the ones who desire the outcome
toward which their work is directed. Those who don't care often seem to neglect their
responsibilities or to do them without much energy. I'm trying to understand how
great accomplishments can be made without generating a lot of karma.
This remind me of a passage I read in a book called 'What About the Big Stuff' by Richard Carlson ( an American ! ). It is in the chapter titled 'The Fiction of Failure'. I quote :
' When you question the validity of failure as a legitimate concept, you begin to experience the magic of nonattachment, one of the greatest gifts life has to offer. Before I go on, let me assure you that nonattachment has nothing to do with not caring or with being apathetic. Instead, it's about doing your best, putting the odds in your favor, working hard towards your goal-but simultaneously letting go of the results. You become more involved in the process, but less attached to the fruits of your labor. You still want things to go your way, but you are not dependent on it for your survival and peace of mind. You lose all sense of desperation, replacing it with gentle confidence.
I sometimes describe this as "holding on tightly, but letting go lightly". To do so create enormous emotional freedom. It suggest giving something your very best, 100 percent of your effort, putting your heart and soul into whatever you're doing - but at the same moment being willing to let go of the outcome, or the end result. It means knowing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that when something doesn't match your expectations, hopes, dreams, or vision, all it means is that the universe has something else in store for you. Much more than wishful thinking, this is the way life really works - and it's the best way that I'm aware of to be happy and effective. ' | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | That's an interesting quote. One of the more remarkable people that I know
is one who learned early on that you can survive failure. If I went into details,
it would be too revealing of him, but I can say that when he was in his 50's and
60's he headed the institution that fired him when he was in his 30's. He has this
ability to implement 10 ideas, 9 of them bad, and survive the utter disasters that
the nine bad ones lead to while riding on the success of the tenth one. He's the kind
of person who can be knocked right off his feet, pick himself up, dust off, and
keep walking.
I'd contrast him with a number of other people I work with who live in total terror
that they'd ever make an observable error. The ones who fear failure work incrementally,
in little steps, whereas the ones who don't fear failure take chances. Not fearing failure
and being able to survive your errors makes a very powerful combination --- such people
are often extremely successful overall.
Getting back to attachment, I'd say that the error-fearing people are very deeply attached
to their pride, and that the ones who don't fear error may be so indifferent to consequences
that you could call them self-centered -- also an attachment, I think. They are greedy for
results at whatever cost.
| |
| | |
| Dear Brother Bay Guy:
Though the theory of Non Attachment, called as Nishkaama Karma, works to some extent in the Daily Routine Life (that is called as Vyavahar in the Sanskrit.), its real implication is for a Spiritual Person.
This means that person may actually do the daily routinous work, or may do meditational actions without much getting into to social aspects. But, the principle of his activity has to be NON Attachment to the Fruits of that action. Then only it is called as Nishkaama Karma which is the Yoga Practice.
In Bhagavadgita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to fight in the battle to perform his duty, without attaching to the fruits of it.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Brother Neel,
The people I was think of have no spirituality of which I am aware or can
infer. They are completely unspiritual people. So if I understand your point,
it is that non-attachment isn't really even a useful way to think of them, right?
These folks are extremely attached to the fruits of their labor, oh my yes.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
| Yes, Brother BG. Thanks for this. Yes, NON Attachment is NOT be (and, can not be ) practiced by
NON-Spiritual People. Otherwise, there will be a confusion. To give a parallel example, let me tell you a story with one of my Yoga Teacher Trainee. She felt shy to instruct students as some students were better in poses than her. I told her that you are a Teacher in the class you are Teaching and even a world famous teacher attending your class must obey you if he is in the student community. So, go ahead.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I come from a tradition of learning in which students are encouraged to
question the teacher's reasons and thinking at every step. It can be
quite challenging to teach in such an environment, since the teacher
must be a true master of the material he or she teaches. In yoga classes,
the style is to let the teacher slowly unveil whatever it is that s/he is
teaching...questions are usually directed at modifications or "have I got
this right" rather than "why are we doing this pose now". | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-01-24 8:50 PM
Yes, Taimni mentions the relationship to Samkhya and he's very specific in saying
that purushas remain separate even when they evolve to purusha vishesha. He's
very good in other areas of the sutras, at least in the sense of explaining the basic
ideas thoroughly. He gives much more detail than some of the other commentaries
that I have.
I'm coming in late on this thread, so pardon me if it seems intrusive, but it's an interesting discussion and there are a few points I'd like to take a stab at.
The first being that while Taimni might be a good introductory read, from my subsequent readings of other treatments on PYS, he can go astray on a number of points. I read his book several years back and no longer have it, so sorry but I can't be specific.
However, a subsequent comparitive study of Legget's "Sankara on the Yoga Sutras" along with another translation (under a respected Acharya) revealed some major weaknesses. Also, Taimni's is a Theosophical Society publication, which is not to say it's bad, but just that might be considered less than authoritative on those grounds.
Legget's study is a good reference as it contains Vyasa Maharishi's commentary as well as what is thought to be the commentary of Shankaracharya. (Check on Amazon for a used copy. It’s quite pricey new.)
Another consideration when studying PYS is the difficulty in translating shades of meaning of the very subtle and colorful Sanskrit, which the rather more stark and prosaic English language often doesn’t do justice.
Try to get hold of a two or three decent versions by different authors and comparing the sutra translations carefully. It’s tedious, but with careful reflection it helps tease out the meaning. Obviously having a knowledgeable teacher helps a lot too!
In addition to Legget’s version, I also mainly refer to Vishnudevanandas translation in “Meditation and Mantras”, which is somewhat sketchy, but it has the Sanskrit text plus the phonetic rendering in Roman letters, with the Swami’s commentary.
I’m sure there are other good versions out there too. If anyone can recommend one, please do so.
I’m glad this forum exists, and to be able to take part in these discussions in the spirit of mutual growth in knowledge. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Sivaram,
This is interesting. I don't follow your criticism of the Theosophical Society.
Can you clarify this for me? On Taimni in general, I agree that he gets himself
muddled at points, especially when he starts talking about astrophysics or
E = m*c*c --- sort of a need to connect the Science of Yoga to the physical sciences,
which is a slippery slope indeed.
| |
| | |
| Dear Shivaram and Bay Guy: I just wanted to add two following points, in case they are relavant to you. I am not able to give all reasonin and explanation as that will take too long.
1. Legget's book titles Shankara --- This is NOT Adi Shankaracharya. Adi Shakaracharya. There is NO doubt about it. Also, if any one of you can get me the Sanskrit Version of that book, I mean the Shankara Part, I shall be extremely thankful.
2. Vyaasa Maharshi in the Legget's Book, or the New York University (Dr. Kukherjee) book or any other book, is NOT Vedavyasa, the author of Shrimad Bhagavadgita. Why? This is very simple. Patanjali wrote the Aphorisms after Gautam Budda. And, Veda Vyasa's time is 3000 or more years before Christ.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Brother Neel,
I'm afraid that I can be of no help to you on the books, other
than to suggest that you search Amazon.com or Alibris.com
The latter specializes in used books.
At one time, you had recommended some specific commentaries on
the Yoga Sutras. I lost track of that post. Can you recommend them
again?
| |
| | |
| Dear BG:
The commentaries I recommend are as follows:
1. Rajayoga by Swami Vivekananda (it is not actually a writing but notes from his speeches.). Look for Complette Works of Swami Vivekananda - vol 1. It should cost less than 10 dollars.
2. Yoga Sutras of Patanjali - by Swami Sachidananda, Yogaville (www.yogaville.org). These are also notes from his speeches.
With all humility, I can also recommend Videos of My (neel kulkarni) workshop sppeches of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali at Sun and Moon Yoga Studio in Arlington, VA. So far Introduction and Chapter 1 are over (7 hours of video). And, all others will be over by May, one chapter each Month from March to May.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Thanks, Brother Neel.
Piel has just created a new forum on Philosophy and Religion, so I suggest
that we move our discussions of these topics there, out of the Meditiation Forum.
Bay Guy | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-02-26 8:25 PM
Sivaram,
This is interesting. I don't follow your criticism of the Theosophical Society.
Can you clarify this for me? On Taimni in general, I agree that he gets himself
muddled at points, especially when he starts talking about astrophysics or
E = m*c*c --- sort of a need to connect the Science of Yoga to the physical sciences,
which is a slippery slope indeed.
Well, largely it’s personal bias, nothing to follow really. Personally, I prefer to stay fairly close to an authoritative tradition and while I sometimes resort to stories and examples from Buddhism and Taoism, I think too much eclecticism can run the risk of watering down what are already complete and powerful teachings - as in yoga itself. Theosophy is relatively new, has definite occult connections, gathers information and teaches in a rather random fashion, and has no strong historical teaching lineage. Therefore I’m skeptical. Taimni’s book didn’t help to raise my opinion. Also I’ve personally known people who’ve come to harm from dabbling in occult practices such as Theosophy disseminates. I don’t agree with telling just any first time meditation student about such things as astral projection and awakening kundalini shakti. | |
| |
|
Hinduism and Christianity