Patanjali's Sutras and Samyama questions

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi

 

In almost every text that I've read about Patanjali's Sutras, dharana and dhyana are explained as follows: Dharana is concentration on one object, which requires effort. Dhyana, (meditation) is the result of successfully maintaining a constant stream of awareness on the object of attention.

 

For example, in "Kundalini Tantra" by Satyananda, dharana is

 

"Dharana: concentration; continuity of mental process on one object or idea without leaving it."

 

"Dhyana: meditation, in the sense of intense meditation for an extended period of time."

 

 

Swamiji's interpretation of Patanjali's 6'th and 7'th limbs of yoga, dharana and dhyana is as follows:

link: http://swamij.com/yoga-sutras-30406.htm

 

Dharana: Concentration is the process of holding or fixing the attention of mind onto one object or place. (3.1)

 

Dhyana: Meditation is sustained concentration, whereby the attention continues to hold or repeat the same object or place. (3.2)

 

 

 

From the wiki:

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyama

 

Fixing the consciousness on one point or region is concentration (dharana).

 

A steady, continuous flow of attention directed towards the same point or region is meditation (dhyana).

 

When the object of meditation engulfs the meditator, appearing as the subject, self-awareness is lost. This is samadhi.

 

These three together [dharana, dhyana and samadhi] constitute integration or samyama.

 

And, more from the wiki:

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%81

 

Dharana may be translated as "holding", "holding steady", "concentration" or "single focus". The prior limb Pratyahara involves withdrawing the senses from external phenomena. Dharana; builds further upon this by refining it further to ekagrata or ekagra chitta, that is single-pointed concentration and focus, which is in this context cognate with shamata. Maehle (2006: p. 234) defines Dharana as: "The mind thinks about one object and avoids other thoughts; awareness of the object is still interrupted."

 

Dharana; is the initial step of deep concentrative meditation, where the object being focused upon is held in the mind without consciousness wavering from it. The difference between Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi (the three together constituting Samyama) is that in the former, the object of meditation, the meditator, and the act of meditation itself remain separate. That is, the meditator or the meditator's meta-awareness is conscious of meditating (that is, is conscious of the act of meditation) on an object, and of his or her own self, which is concentrating on the object. In the subsequent stage of Dhyana, as the meditator becomes more advanced, consciousness of the act of meditation disappears, and only the consciousness of being/existing and the object of concentration exist (in the mind). In the final stage of Samadhi, the ego-mind also dissolves, and the meditator becomes one with the object. Generally, the object of concentration is God, or the Self, which is seen as an expression of God.

 

The aforementioned interpretations of dharana and dhyana are consistent with what I have understood for over 40 years.

 

However, this is how AYP percieves Dharana and Dhyana, the sixth and seventh limbs of Patanjali's yoga sutras:

 

link: http://www.aypsite.org/149.html

 

6. Dharana It means "concentration or focus of attention," and is the first step in taking the mind inward through meditation. In the lessons, we don't hold the attention on anything for long. We just bring attention easily to an object (the mantra), and then let it go how it will. This brings attention almost immediately beyond the beginning perception for the object, which is what we want. The mind will take us inward if we give it the opportunity.

 

7. Dhyana It means "meditation," and is the flow of attention inward. It can also be described as the expansion of attention beyond any object. In the lessons, the mantra is used as the vehicle for this. We come easily to the mantra, and then the mantra changes and disappears. Our attention expands, arriving in its natural unattached state - stillness.

 

But is this valid? How can that be? In the classic definition of dharana, there is the sense of sustaining concentration on the object for an extended amount of time, yet AYP's interpretation says that "we don't hold the attention on anything for long". Aren't these two ideas at polar opposites of each other? How can you train the mind to sustain concentration on an object by "not holding attention on anything for long"?

 

I'm trying hard to understand all of this. It appears to me that AYP is redefining the classic definitions of Patanjali's dharana and dhyana and trying to make it look like Deep Meditation is part of or is the same as Patanjali's 6'th and 7'th sutras. AYP says:

 

link: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=678#2269

 

In Patanjali's yoga sutra's it is a three stage process comprising the last three of the eight limbs of yoga:

 

1. Concentration - attention on an object (dharana)

2. Meditation - dissolving of the object (dhyana)

3. Absorption - pure bliss consciousness with no object (samadhi)

 

All of these are included in our easy deep meditation procedure.

 

To me, Yogani is describing a technique, and that technique may or may not work (I'm not discussing the technique's efficacy here), but that technique doesn't seem to be Patanjali's teaching.

 

The other thing I don't understand is AYP's usage of the term "samyama". According to Patanjali, samyama is the combination of the three last limbs of yoga which are performed on the chosen object, the object being a thought, concept or some type of form. According to Patanjali, the process of samyama is to concentrate, and then meditate on the object until samadhi is reached. When in the state of this samadhi (with seed), the mind is empowered and specific insights, understanding and knowledge (and even abilities [sidhis]) relative to the seed (meditation object) are gained.

 

AYP's samyama is reversed, as posted here:

link: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=678#2269

 

Interestingly, samyama utilizes the same three limbs of yoga going in the reverse direction -- from inside outward. When we have developed to the point where we can have 1, 2 and 3 happening more or less in the same place (translation: some degree of resident inner silence), then we can initiate and release thoughts in inner silence and they will boomerang out, greatly amplified, through our nervous system and into the world. This is how stillness moves into action. It is a morally self-regulating process because neither ego nor negative intentions exist in our infinite field of pure bliss consciousness.

 

According to AYP's instructions, you release a sutra into inner silence, wait 15 seconds and then repeat. Then you move on to the next sutra.

 

When I perform the classic steps of Patanjali's dharana, dhyana and then enter samadhi, there is no mind left: the body/mind and universe have dissolved, my object of meditation has become very bright and colorful and there is immense bliss. There is no mind at that point. You cannot function willfully at that point. I do not see how anybody in that state could even remember a sutra and then release it into silence (as is the AYP method). Surely, at that point, the mind no longer functions. How then is the AYP version of 'samyama' even possible? What am I missing here?

 

Is the subtle key, the 'location' of the mantra, and the effort is in sustaining the 'location' where the effortless action is taking place? Is "more or less in the same place (translation: some degree of resident inner silence)" to be translated as "inner silence is a location in the mind where all this takes place? If AYP's deep meditation is modeled after TM, and TM is supposed to be effortless, where then is the effort? Is the effort in maintaining that place in the mind?

 

 

I had posted these questions on the AYP forum but I was not satisfied with the responses. Nor was I happy with the fact that, instead of answering my questions, my inquiry was branded as "comparitive scholarship". I am concerned that the essence of Patanjali's teachings is being misrepresented. But maybe I am wrong. So I thought I'd post it here to see what anyone else has to say about it.

 

I do not wish to start an AYP bashing session, I'm just trying to understand the correct interpretation of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, specifically the 6'th, 7'th and 8'th limbs as well as the correct interpretation of "samyama".

 

I look forward to hearing your opinion.

 

TI

Edited November 22, 2011 by Tibetan_Ice

[Apech]

Excellent questions TI. I hope to come back to them later when I have more time. However just quickly now I would say that in some of these descriptions there seems to be a mixture of formal description and experiential description. I think that part of the initial learning for practice is to learn to focus one pointedly without effort ... but that can be misleading because effort of some kind or energy expenditure is needed to move from a scattered, busy mind to a quiet focused one. But the actual achievement of dharana or eka-citta/eka-grata is not effortful but more a kind of resting or complete engagement perhaps.

 

In terms of mind-content there is a letting come letting go process ... but in terms of the dharana there is a complete absorption in the meditation object. So if you were to say what you are doing it would be single pointed focus ... but if you were to describe the general state you might say that you are not holding on to anything. Maybe.

 

I would say ... as you seem to be an experienced practitioner ... trust your own experience and its validity. Failing that go with the authentic original ... i.e. Patanjali ... because some teachers like to sell easier paths ... (?).

 

A.

[dwai]

Read the discussion on this forum -- http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/5-share-this/910-meditation-and-form-worship.html

 

The difference between Dharana and Dhyana is provided there in. Specifically from here -- http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/5-share-this/910-meditation-and-form-worship.html?limit=6&start=24

[Tibetan_Ice]

Excellent questions TI. I hope to come back to them later when I have more time. However just quickly now I would say that in some of these descriptions there seems to be a mixture of formal description and experiential description. I think that part of the initial learning for practice is to learn to focus one pointedly without effort ... but that can be misleading because effort of some kind or energy expenditure is needed to move from a scattered, busy mind to a quiet focused one. But the actual achievement of dharana or eka-citta/eka-grata is not effortful but more a kind of resting or complete engagement perhaps.

 

In terms of mind-content there is a letting come letting go process ... but in terms of the dharana there is a complete absorption in the meditation object. So if you were to say what you are doing it would be single pointed focus ... but if you were to describe the general state you might say that you are not holding on to anything. Maybe.

 

I would say ... as you seem to be an experienced practitioner ... trust your own experience and its validity. Failing that go with the authentic original ... i.e. Patanjali ... because some teachers like to sell easier paths ... (?).

 

A.

Hi Apech

I guess the point is "what is the authentic original Patanjali teaching?"

I've also seen TM and the TM-Siddhi program refered to as Patanjali's Yoga and samyama (respectively). I see no resemblance there either.

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

Read the discussion on this forum -- http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/5-share-this/910-meditation-and-form-worship.html

 

The difference between Dharana and Dhyana is provided there in. Specifically from here -- http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/5-share-this/910-meditation-and-form-worship.html?limit=6&start=24

 

Hi Dwai

Thanks for the link and the interesting reading. However, it seems that that exploration of the meanings of dharana and dhyana in that discussion coincide with the classic interpretation of what Patanjali is saying.

 

TI

[link]

Hi TI,

 

I have experience in AYP as well as other methods of meditation and samyama. There is quite a difference, as you aptly point out. The AYP method is more oriented to letting go/surrender from the beginning. For instance, in DM, no matter what thoughts and perceptions are occuring, as soon as we realize we are off the mantra, we return to it. AYP samyama and AYP cosmic samyama are similar in regards to letting go of what is happening, by releasing sutras in silence. When done correctly over the long term, the practices lead the practitioner to habitually letting go and abidance in inner silence and unity.

 

The results I've had with classic approaches to samyama, such as those found on swamij.com, are the same as in AYP samyama in many instances. That is, dissolving, absorption, samadhi. This approach often involves asserting or holding on to personal intention or will, which can diminish or reverse progress. Of course, we have plentiful warnings to not seek siddhis and experiences. Sustained concentration can be great to train the mind to be one pointed and reach samadhi, and this will need to be integrated into daily life. I consider the AYP method to be advanced in training one-pointedness and samadhi. Add the ability to habitually let go, and this is a very effective system for many. That is not to say that other approaches are not effective. They are... just different paths up the same mountain.

 

Link

Edited December 11, 2011 by link

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi TI,

 

I have experience in AYP as well as other methods of meditation and samyama. There is quite a difference, as you aptly point out. The AYP method is more oriented to letting go/surrender from the beginning. For instance, in DM, no matter what thoughts and perceptions are occuring, as soon as we realize we are off the mantra, we return to it. AYP samyama and AYP cosmic samyama are similar in regards to letting go of what is happening, by releasing sutras in silence. When done correctly over the long term, the practices lead the practitioner to habitually letting go and abidance in inner silence and unity.

Hi Link

Thanks for the response.

You certainly do have the AYP lingo.

If you have experience in inner silence, then perhaps you could answer this question:

 

"When I perform the classic steps of Patanjali's dharana, dhyana and then enter samadhi, there is no mind left: the body/mind and universe have dissolved, my object of meditation has become very bright and colorful and there is immense bliss. There is no mind at that point. You cannot function willfully at that point. I do not see how anybody in that state could even remember a sutra and then release it into silence (as is the AYP method). Surely, at that point, the mind no longer functions. How then is the AYP version of 'samyama' even possible? What am I missing here?"

 

 

The results I've had with classic approaches to samyama, such as those found on swamij.com, are the same as in AYP samyama in many instances. That is, dissolving, absorption, samadhi. This approach often involves asserting or holding on to personal intention or will, which can diminish or reverse progress.

Yes, definately, if one hangs onto will. Isn't that a rather crude understanding of classic samyama? The point is not to blast through using personal intent and will and maintain that throughout. The proper method of samayma is to train the awareness to remain on the object effortlessly. In the finer stages, one must learn to let go and relax effort/will as well as clear away the remaining thoughts/distractions (Bhuddists call these the five hinderances) so that the awareness rests on the object. The result is a constant stream of awareness on the object.

 

 

Of course, we have plentiful warnings to not seek siddhis and experiences. Sustained concentration can be great to train the mind to be one pointed and reach samadhi, and this will need to be integrated into daily life. I consider the AYP method to be advanced in training one-pointedness and samadhi. Add the ability to habitually let go, and this is a very effective system for many. That is not to say that other approaches are not effective. They are... just different paths up the same mountain.

 

Link

 

How can you train awareness, detect dullness or fading, detect excitement or clinging to sensuous feelings (the 5 hinderances) if one is just constantly letting go?

My main concern about DM, which is so similar to TM that you might as well say they are the same, is that it elicits the relaxation response. If the relaxation response and Patanjali's samyama take you to the same place on the mountain, what can you say to convince me? Patanjali's samyama produces superconsciousness, the relaxation response does not. Have you experienced superconcsiousness? Are you saying that both samadhis are identical? Can you describe them?

 

Thanks.

TI

[link]

Hi Link

Thanks for the response.

You certainly do have the AYP lingo.

If you have experience in inner silence, then perhaps you could answer this question:

 

"When I perform the classic steps of Patanjali's dharana, dhyana and then enter samadhi, there is no mind left: the body/mind and universe have dissolved, my object of meditation has become very bright and colorful and there is immense bliss. There is no mind at that point. You cannot function willfully at that point. I do not see how anybody in that state could even remember a sutra and then release it into silence (as is the AYP method). Surely, at that point, the mind no longer functions. How then is the AYP version of 'samyama' even possible? What am I missing here?"

 

It is not that the mind no longer functions. The mind is still. In AYP samyama, buddhi rests in space, presence, being, oneness, awareness, consciousness. Mind is not active, but not dysfunctional. Best way I could put it is- awareness at rest. The sutra is made conscious and released at intervals according to the purpose. Have you ever had the experience of waking up at the exact time you decided the previous night, without the aid of an alarm clock or anything external? This normally happens one to two minutes before my alarm goes off, or exactly when I wanted awaken when not using an alarm. It's not a willful remembering, it just happens. It happens like that with AYP samyama. It can also occur in other ways without thought, at a subtler level like feeling, or being.

 

Yes, definately, if one hangs onto will. Isn't that a rather crude understanding of classic samyama? The point is not to blast through using personal intent and will and maintain that throughout. The proper method of samayma is to train the awareness to remain on the object effortlessly. In the finer stages, one must learn to let go and relax effort/will as well as clear away the remaining thoughts/distractions (Bhuddists call these the five hinderances) so that the awareness rests on the object. The result is a constant stream of awareness on the object.

 

As I said, I have experience with "classic samyama". I'm not limited to any one system. What I type may seem crude to you, but please keep in mind that it is intended to be basic. I've considered many of the same questions you ask and have sought answers as well. I am saying basically, the difference in the two methods we are speaking of comes down to holding on vs. letting go, and intentions. To serve yourself or to serve the whole. These are the basic differences that I have found (reflection) to be important to be aware of. You can investigate this further within if you choose. One is not better or more proper or more correct than the other. When approached the same way (as practice), each method has yielded similar outcomes in my recollection.

 

How can you train awareness, detect dullness or fading, detect excitement or clinging to sensuous feelings (the 5 hinderances) if one is just constantly letting go?

My main concern about DM, which is so similar to TM that you might as well say they are the same, is that it elicits the relaxation response. If the relaxation response and Patanjali's samyama take you to the same place on the mountain, what can you say to convince me? Patanjali's samyama produces superconsciousness, the relaxation response does not. Have you experienced superconcsiousness? Are you saying that both samadhis are identical? Can you describe them?

 

Constantly letting go is not a thought process, active process, or a doing. It is simply being. I don't know what you mean by "relaxation response". It seems like you've boiled down AYP and TM to "relaxation response". I am saying the source and the destination are the same. Being doesn't depend on using or not using objects. There are no boundaries. There is nothing I can say to convince you, it is internally revealed. "Relaxation response" or "superconsciousness"... it ultimately makes no difference. Self is beyond label and description. No, I can't describe with any accuracy. I can rule out "response". Not a response, just simply being. How about "super-relaxation beyond conceptualization, fully aware in divine love?"

 

Edit spelling

Edited December 12, 2011 by link

[Tibetan_Ice]

It is not that the mind no longer functions. The mind is still. In AYP samyama, buddhi rests in space, presence, being, oneness, awareness, consciousness. Mind is not active, but not dysfunctional. Best way I could put it is- awareness at rest. The sutra is made conscious and released at intervals according to the purpose.

Hi Link

Thanks for your response.

Since you have used the term "buddhi", let's define the Antahkaran, of which the buddhi is a part. Then perhaps we will conclude that the buddhi is either active, or it rests, but if it is functioning, it is not resting. And if the buddhi has transformations, then it is not suspended nor can it be at rest.

 

According to the text called Aptavani 01, by Dada Bhagwan, originally Compiled in Gujarati by Dr. Niruben Amin (link: Aptavani-01.pdf)

the Antahkaran consists of four parts of which the buddhi is one:

The antahkaran has four components : mana (mind), buddhi

(intellect), chit (that which sees scenes, previously registered)

and ahamhkar (ego).

All four have a form and can be read. They are not

visible to the eyes but can be comprehended through Gnan.

They are completely physical. The Pure Soul (Shuddhatma) has

nothing to with the antahkaran; it is completely separate from it.

The main point is that here it is stated that the buddhi is separate from the Pure Soul.

 

In the book called "The Yoga-Sutra Of Patanjali", by Manilal Nabhubhai Dvivedi, 1914, it says this:

II. Yoga is the suppression of the transformations of the thinking principle.

The word Yoga has often been rendered by meditation of concentration, which both are not sufficient to convey the full import of the term. In order to explain the maining it is necessary to understand what is the thinking principle, and what are the transformations. 'The thinking principle' is a comprehensive expression equal to the Sanskrita word Antahkarana which is divided into four parts: Manasa (mind), the principle which cognises generally; Chitta (individualising), the idea which fixes itself upon a point and makes the object its own by making it an individual; Ahankara (egoism), the persuasion which connects the individual with the self; and Budhhi (reason), the light that determines one way or other.

 

Knowledge or perception is a kind of transformation (parinama) of the thinking principle into anything which is the subject or external or internal presentation, through one or other of these four. All knowledge is of the kind of transformations of the thinking principle. Even the Will which is the very first essential of Yoga is a kind of such transformation. Yoga is the complete suppression of the tendency of the thinking principle to transform itself into objects, thoughts etc. It is possible that there should be degrees among these transformations, and the higher ones may assist to check the lower ones; but Yoga is acquired only when there is complete cessation of the one or the other, as will be seen later on. It should be distinctly borne in mind that the thinking principle is not the Atman, the Purusha, who is the source of all consciousness and knowledge.

(page 2)

 

Then, on page 37 of that same book it says:

XVII. The cause of that which is to warded off is the junction of the seer and the sight.

The seer is the purusha, and sight is all that is seen through it, as also the instrument through which it is seen, viz., buddhi, the result of sattva. Buddhi or intellect is very near purusha and is active through him, though not exactly by him. The falsely uniting the one with the other by the impression that they are one and the same is the union implied in the aphorism. It is the cause of all misery. The argument may be extended from buddhi to the senses, and thence to the objects cognised, and prakriti the root of all.

 

So, according to the aforementioned quotes, the budhhi does not rest "in space, presence, being, oneness, awareness, consciousness.". Further, the statement " Mind is not active, but not dysfunctional." is exactly what AYP is trying to convince us of. It is a contradiction. An oxymoron. The purusha is the only part that is "Being" and it is separate from the Buddhi. The only way to the purusha is through the suppression of the transformations of the thinking principle, not the other way around. Doesn't this reveal the ambiguity of AYP's interpretation of samyama?

Isn't bringing a sutra to consciousness and releasing it, as suggested in AYP, the causing of transformations of the mind?

 

You said:

Have you ever had the experience of waking up at the exact time you decided the previous night, without the aid of an alarm clock or anything external? This normally happens one to two minutes before my alarm goes off, or exactly when I wanted awaken when not using an alarm. It's not a willful remembering, it just happens. It happens like that with AYP samyama. It can also occur in other ways without thought, at a subtler level like feeling, or being.

Yes, I've had that happen many times. Also, after meditating at least twice a day for 4 1/2 years now, a thought that my meditation bell timer will go off usually spontaneously appears, and usually I know exactly how many seconds are left in the count-down. Sometimes I count along. Most of the time I'm about 10 or 15 seconds off.. Now, that mental action isn't from being, or presence, or the purusha; that is the sub-conscious which has been programmed. It is a part of the mind which hasn't yet been suppressed or stilled. To call it "releasing a sutra from inner silence" as AYP does, is misleading and contrary to the architecture of Patanjali's samyama. Again, I ask the question, how can you even act from 'inner silence' when the act itself is a modification of the mind, and if the mind is modifying, it is transforming. If it is transforming, it is not suppressed. If it is not suppressed, there is no pure 'being'. Further, I still do not understand the AYP term "inner silence" and how it is used in proper context. AYP calls samyama "stillness moving into action" and maintains that it is a mystery how it works.

 

 

As I said, I have experience with "classic samyama". I'm not limited to any one system. What I type may seem crude to you, but please keep in mind that it is intended to be basic. I've considered many of the same questions you ask and have sought answers as well. I am saying basically, the difference in the two methods we are speaking of comes down to holding on vs. letting go, and intentions. To serve yourself or to serve the whole. These are the basic differences that I have found (reflection) to be important to be aware of. You can investigate this further within if you choose. One is not better or more proper or more correct than the other. When approached the same way (as practice), each method has yielded similar outcomes in my recollection.

 

I disagree with that. One is correct and the other is at the opposite end of the dualistic pole. Patanjali's sutras and his eight limbs of yoga have a particular order, and one must follow the order in order to arrive at samadhi and use the tool properly. One cannot just jump into samadhi and then work backwards in reverse order. The purusha has no desires, no will, it is the eternal watcher. See what I mean? If you think both methods yielded similar results, then (no disrespect here), you probably think that that little bubble of silence and black space that you cultivated is significant. I say it is an imaginary construction of the mind fertilized by AYP's misconceptions and blurry word definitions. If you expand your awarness to the outside of the bubble, you will see that there are still thoughts, impressions, other planes, lights and motion on the outside. You can't get there by going outwards, you have to continually reverse your course and head back to the source, the purusha, the eternal light. Then you discover that all is contained within that spec of light.

 

 

Constantly letting go is not a thought process, active process, or a doing. It is simply being. I don't know what you mean by "relaxation response". It seems like you've boiled down AYP and TM to "relaxation response". I am saying the source and the destination are the same. Being doesn't depend on using or not using objects. There are no boundaries. There is nothing I can say to convince you, it is internally revealed. "Relaxation response" or "superconsciousness"... it ultimately makes no difference. Self is beyond label and description. No, I can't describe with any accuracy. I can rule out "response". Not a response, just simply being. How about "super-relaxation beyond conceptualization, fully aware in divine love?"

 

Edit spelling

The term "relaxation response" is the term that is used to describe what TM really does. Many studies were made that determined that exactly the same benefifical effects and brain wave patterns that were produced from TM could be attained by just sitting and mentally repeating any nonsensical word over and over until eventually the mind is so bored that it shut itself off (or falls asleep) - the relaxation response. And Patanjali says something about that too (according to Dvivedi):

 

When the intercepting impressions gain complete supremacy, the moment of interception is achieved, and the mind transforms itself into this intercepting moment, so to speak. It is in the interval of this change that the mind may droop and fall into what is called laya or a state of passive dullness leading to all the miseries of irresponsible mediumship. Hence this passage from the conscious to the so-called unconscious is a very difficult and critical process.

 

But yes, there are things you could tell me to convince me that you have been successful at Patanjali's samyama. Perhaps stories of siddhis? Stories of bright golden light, immense bliss, and your mind working like greased lightning afterwards..

 

You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. Buddha practiced concentrative mind techniques for many years, and it wasn't until he realized that there was more to let go of, that he came accross enlightenment. Letting go is not a doing. Letting go is detachment, detachment from all things, thoughts, forms, words, peanut butter sandwiches, ego, ...

 

TI

[link]

Buddhi is a part of the individual mind which is part of consciousness. In samadhi, mind is still. One rests in his nature. A sutra in consciousness is but a ripple. Objects/sutras are common with each method of samyama. The transformation or modification of mind is not a problem. Attachment is a problem. Just let go.

 

Anyone can see the differences in the methods upon investigation. It is not difficult. Your agenda to discredit AYP, let it go. Why do you hold on to this? If AYP didn't work for you, I'm sorry for you, but perhaps that is what needed to happen. Let it be and move on. No one system is for everyone, "classic" Patanjali interpretations included.

 

Peace

 

Link

[Tibetan_Ice]

Buddhi is a part of the individual mind which is part of consciousness. In samadhi, mind is still. One rests in his nature. A sutra in consciousness is but a ripple. Objects/sutras are common with each method of samyama. The transformation or modification of mind is not a problem. Attachment is a problem. Just let go.

 

Anyone can see the differences in the methods upon investigation. It is not difficult. Your agenda to discredit AYP, let it go. Why do you hold on to this? If AYP didn't work for you, I'm sorry for you, but perhaps that is what needed to happen. Let it be and move on. No one system is for everyone, "classic" Patanjali interpretations included.

 

Peace

 

Link

Hi Link

Letting go is a good thing especially as a stand-alone practice but the letting go part in samyama should be the letting go of everything else which is not the object/sutra.

 

You know, there are many kinds of samadhi ranging from light with seed, deep with seed and deep without seed.

Here is a link: types of samadhi

 

The interesting thing on that page is this: "Entering samādhi initially takes great willpower and maintaining it takes even more will."

 

My experience with samadhi from practising Deep Meditation has been "a very short bob" into the depth, like a buoy that bobs up and down on a stormy ocean. And upon returning, the mind feels like it is returning from sleep or a happy whiteout. And, if I do not bob, I inevitably progress through to the dreaming stage where I get bombarded with visions and dream-like videos. I believe this is the state of laya, from the quote from Patanjali that I listed previously: "called laya or a state of passive dullness leading to all the miseries of irresponsible mediumship. " Actually I spent a few years doing that, thinking that that was proper technique until I started researching it and found that AYP's definition of dharana is not conventional.

 

My experience with samadhi from the Patanjali's classic samyama is like one meditation today which lasted 35 minutes:

Sit in meditation posture, do some kunlun type deep breathing, drawing in the prana and focusing on the dark smoke while exhaling while sitting on a lotus in the middle of the blue sky.. 4 minutes.

Short bout of Anapanasati, relaxing the body, letting go, deeply relaxing the face and watching the breath.

Think the mantra "AUM". See the light inside the center of the head. Focus on the meaning of AUM (God's word), the sound of OM and the light. Lose it, so repeat. Persist at this for about 7 minutes until the mind calms down.

The light becomes brighter. Sustain concentration on the meaning of AUM, clearer of obstacles, word of God, hear the AUM resonate, see the light. Turn up the concentration. Attempt to forge a steady stream.

Maintain focus. The light becomes very bright, like an arc welder's torch. Tingles and waves start coming out of the heart going upwards. The light grows. Stream of bliss starts to occur. Body falls away. Mind falls away. Immense light and bliss, joy, peace... tibetan bell timer goes off.. rats!

 

So you see, both techniques "work", it's just that they don't take you to the same place, do they? The goal of Patanjali's samyama is to develop concentration to the point where you can hold onto anything with a steady stream of awareness, whether that be an object, a sutra, empty space, or even the feeling of being. Without the ability to fix, hold on, sustain a steady stream of awareness, you just bob in and out. And from what I've read about TM meditators, they can bob in and out for decades without any self-realization or enlightenment. Isn't that the whole point of the exercise?

 

Link, if you found something that was inaccurate, that was deceiving, that you were caught in for years, wouldn't you feel like you had an obligation to warn others about it? Isn't it your duty? If someone would have told me four years ago that the AYP meditation is actually a form of customized TM and not Patanjali's dharana/dhyana/samadhi, then I could have had the choice to follow or not. If someone would have told me that Yogani invented AYP, that he is trying to marry the TM and TM-siddhi program with Kriya Yoga wouldn't it be proper to tell people that instead of trying to claim that AYP is Patanjali's Eight Limbs of Yoga?

 

Yogani says:

link: http://www.aypsite.org/149.html

Patanjali's book of yoga sutras is one of the greatest scriptures of all time. Not only does it tell us what we are, but also it tells us how the doors of the nervous system can be opened. It lays out the relationships between the natural principles of opening that exist in us. This is done with the famous eight limbs of yoga.

 

We have been traveling through the eight limbs ever since we started the lessons of AdvancedYogaPractices. We have not gone in order, and some would call this non-conventional.

 

...

The eight limbs of yoga are so logical and easy to understand that virtually every teacher of yoga claims to be teaching them, which is true to one degree or another, because the eight limbs cover everything one can do in yoga. In this sense, they represent a complete road map, a blueprint and spiritual checklist of the various ways to open the human nervous system to divine experience.

 

Taken together as an overall system, the eight limbs have been referred to as "ashtanga yoga" and "raja (royal) yoga." But what is in a name? AdvancedYogaPractices are the eight limbs too.

 

If the eight limbs of yoga are so logical and easy to understand, how can Yogani have misinterpreted samyama, dharana and dhyana?

 

And when I asked him about that, this was my response:

If you want one that matches Patanjali's Yoga Sutras word for word, then go with that. But I should remind you that the Yoga Sutras are a 25 page document of pithy statements/sutras that have been interpreted 1000 ways in large volumes over the centuries. AYP is only one of those ways. Comparing it on paper with the other 999 ways is not going to be very helpful from a practitioner's point of view.

 

Well, an understanding of the last three limbs of yoga has benefited me greatly. And it was obtained by comparing the AYP's interpretation to six other interpretations of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (which all say basically the same classic thing).

 

I am only interested in truth. Sometimes you have to dig deep and upset some people in order to find it.

 

I don't have to discredit AYP. If one starts to closely examine it's teachings, customizations, practices, it discredits itself. But a novice would never discover that on their own. You have to dig deep and know your stuff...

 

You asked...

 

So, if you are unwilling or unable to tell us about the differences between the experiences of classic samyama and AYP's samyama, it makes me wonder what your purpose is here. What are you basing your claims on?

What do you practice now? Are you perhaps someone from AYP trying to maintain the parrot and the brown-noser?

 

TI

[link]

TI,

 

I agree that there are differences in methods, as I've said. I do not agree that one is right and another wrong. That is your evaluation, your judgment. My experience in each method results in unity. Subject and object joined. For me, it is not about seeing light, but that which sees. Abidance in pure awareness is enough. Being is enough. I no longer need to sit or seek bliss in meditation. I am that. I do not represent AYP. I'm not from AYP. I draw on AYP as a resource for my practice. I also draw from many other sources. My experience is unique and I do not care to exchange the minuscule and boiled down reflections of experiences in meditation with you or anyone else. It is all internally revealed. I don't want anyone to believe what I say, I only wish for others to know peace, joy, and contentment within themselves. Whatever I need on my path is presented at the appropriate and perfect time. I don't agree that AYP meditation is the same as TM or that it elicits "relaxation response". Nor do I agree that AYP claims to represent a one true interpretation of the Yoga Sutras. AYP is one way, not the only way. Nothing I've read from AYP is contrary to that. I have respect for other traditions and do not speak negatively about any of them, even if I disagree. We all need different things at different times on our paths. It is not for me to say what is appropriate for another. My purpose here is to give another perspective. Perhaps it will help someone, perhaps not. That is all I have to say.

 

Regards,

 

Link

Edited December 14, 2011 by link

[link]

TI,

 

Dharana, dhyana, and samadhi are involved in AYP samyama, and in a way that is not contrary to yoga sutras (although the order may be different). In fact, dharana and dhyana are so basic, I hadn't given it much consideration until today. Now, my experience in AYP meditation is vastly different from yours. Early on in AYP, I had difficulty maintaining focus on the mantra. I would get lost in other thoughts, visions, etc. regularly. This lasted for a year or so. Then came the ability to keep attention on the mantra continuously. Sometimes other thought streams would occur simultaneously with the mantra. I rarely lost the mantra completely. After a few more months, I gained the ability to keep the mantra in focus without other thoughts- most of the time. One pointed concentration became strong, and the effort needed to maintain focus became less and less. One day while meditating, I sort of slipped into a space of pure awareness (which I subsequently realized has been present all along). The ability to keep a steady stream of attention on the mantra was effortless from that perspective. I saw that mind is the ultimate mantra. Mind was repeating the mantra exactly the way I started it, and it sounds exactly the same as I said it internally to begin with. Over and over. It is a machine! I am not thinking. Thoughts occur, thoughts happen. I am the subject to which the thoughts occur.

 

AYP normally practices samyama after DM. One is already established in awareness, the mind is still. AYP works sort of backwards from traditional samyama. We are going into the practice in stillness, then picking up the sutra (dharana), then it's absorption (samadhi). A continuous stream of awareness remains throughout (dhyana).

 

Link

Edited December 15, 2011 by link

[Tibetan_Ice]

[jijaji]

T.I.

The sound(s) or syllables to meditate on, and person, should fit. Those who are not of brahmin quality, would to well to refrain from using the OM mantra, explains Guru Dev, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswati. He does not recommend repetition of OM at all for all in the householder stage of life. For them, meditation on OM "does not give good effects, it will be responsible for decline and misfortune," he says.

 

Your comparing apples to oranges, Brahmananda Sarawasti belonged to the Advaita Sampradaya of Adi Shankara, not the Patanjali School of Yoga.

 

In Adi Shankaras line householders are encouraged to practice Bhakti and Karma before Jnana. Generally Om is not chanted before mantras until one receives diksha and most certainly one was not initiated into Mahayakya until Sannyass Ashram was taken.

 

Of course things change over time and different schools have different approaches.

 

That Oaks site is kinda lacking in what it say about Svami Brahmanandaji...I would dig deeper.

 

cheers

Edited December 15, 2011 by jijaji

[jijaji]

Have you disappeared into Samadhi T.I ??

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

T.I.

 

 

Your comparing apples to oranges, Brahmananda Sarawasti belonged to the Advaita Sampradaya of Adi Shankara, not the Patanjali School of Yoga.

 

In Adi Shankaras line householders are encouraged to practice Bhakti and Karma before Jnana. Generally Om is not chanted before mantras until one receives diksha and most certainly one was not initiated into Mahayakya until Sannyass Ashram was taken.

 

Of course things change over time and different schools have different approaches.

 

That Oaks site is kinda lacking in what it say about Svami Brahmanandaji...I would dig deeper.

 

cheers

Hi Jijaji

I have interpreted your comments to mean that you are saying that Patanjali's Yoga is not related to the Advaita Vedanta.

I am familiar with Nisargadatta ("I AM THAT"), and the modern western sprouts like John Wheeler, Sailor Bob and Rodney Stevens. Isn't Nisargadatta's instruction of focusing on the feeling of "I AM" similar to Patanjali's sutra of using the AUM mantra to reveal the Self?

Perhaps I am naive, but I've always thought that all true teachings lead to the same source, and that Buddhist's emptiness is the same as the purusha, the same as Eckhart Tolle's presence, the same as Patanjali's Self. They just use different terminology. Arguing about which path is better is just a mind game, because certain paths are better for certain people. We are all at different stages of spiritual evolution and we all have varying dispositions and degrees of ripeness.

Digging a little deeper...

It says that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati:

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmananda_Saraswati

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became a devotee of Brahmananda Saraswati shortly before Brahmanda Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya in 1941. The Maharishi later became the Shankaracharya's personal assistant. The Maharishi wrote an essay on Brahmananda Sarawsati, whom he revered as Guru Dev or greatest teacher, saying: "In the English Language, his devotees felt that the expression "His Holiness" did not adequately describe this personified Divine Effulgence; and so the new expression "His Divinity" was used. With such unique adoration of newer and fuller grandeur, transcending the glories of the expression of antiquity, was worshiped the holy name of Guru Deva, the living expression of Upanishadic Reality, the embodiment of the transcendent Divinity."

At the time when I read about Brahmananda Saraswati, I was surprised to learn that he did not wish to become a disciple of a guru who was not "a lifelong celibate". And, it says that Brahmananda Saraswati was initiated into renunciation in 1906 by Swami Krishnananda Saraswati.

So, I am digesting the idea that TM came from a lineage of Advaita Vedantists.

The comments I have about this are as follows:

1) TM does have a puja ceremony whereby the TM meditator is initiated. This is a puja ceremony. In it, there are vows of secrecy. If a former initate of TM takes the meditation technique and calls it something else and proceeds to teach and sell it, aren't they breaking those vows of secrecy?

2) Because of the celibacy/purity aspect, what do you think Saraswati would think of using TM as part of a kundalini series of practices? What about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?

The other contradiction I have found is that it is said that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi invented TM, but I just found another text that claims that TM is over 5000 years old.

link: http://minet.org/Documents/TM-FAQ

The puja is said to protect the teaching so that nothing is added

or subtracted. Its performance is said to insure that TM is taught

without change, as purportedly it has been taught for the last 5000

years.

 

I guess there is some truth to the saying "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see".

 

That is why it bothers me when someone takes a practice and changes it, twists it and customizes it to their own mental capacities. It also really bothers me when someone claims to be something they are not, or tries to dress themselves in popular clothing hoping to attract followers by claiming "This is Patanjali's Yoga too".

Clever authors and manipulators of people are a scourge of society and the easy access to them granted by the internet has made many people vulnerable to these unscrupulous clever people, especially on a forum that bans anyone with opposing opinions or opinions that do not agree with the presented teachings. It kind of reminds me of how some religions would burn heretics, thinking that their survival was based on eliminating the competition.

 

Anyway, thank you for your comments.

 

TI

[jijaji]

I dont have a lot of time this morning, have to run out and do the shopping thing.

 

But briefly...TM has its roots in TM only,it does not go back beyond MMY...

 

It was never practiced in Adi Shankaras line before MMY introduced it or fabricated it...which ever way you want to see it...

 

cheers

[jijaji]

You may enjoy this as well:

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-1

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-2

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-3

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-4

 

Edited December 17, 2011 by jijaji

[link]

Perhaps I am naive, but I've always thought that all true teachings lead to the same source, and that Buddhist's emptiness is the same as the purusha, the same as Eckhart Tolle's presence, the same as Patanjali's Self. They just use different terminology. Arguing about which path is better is just a mind game, because certain paths are better for certain people. We are all at different stages of spiritual evolution and we all have varying dispositions and degrees of ripeness.

 

Agreed

 

"...all true teachings lead to the same source". Fortunately, we have a lot of teachings to choose from. And, deemed classic or not, evolution rolls on. It's all divine.

 

But, knowledge of particular things doesn't bring liberation, knowing undifferentiatedly does.

 

Recognize that anyalysis and evaluation can only take us so far (out). We increase the obstacles to enlightenment in labeling right/wrong, correct/incorrect, etc. And divisive actions arising from these are not helping our karmic situation or the evolution of consciousness.

 

Don't worry, bhakti will bring you home.

 

And we can sit back in silence and enjoy the play... Ahhh lila

 

 

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things

 

Thus, constantly free of desire

One observes its wonders

Constantly filled with desire

One observes its manifestations

 

These two emerge together but differ in name

The unity is said to be the mystery

Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

 

-Tao Te Ching

Edited December 18, 2011 by link

[jijaji]

this may be useful as well

 

http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm

 

[jijaji]

some chanting of Om stuff, and this is hard core ancient stuff

 

Pāṇini 600-500 BCE who's grammar defines Classical Sanskrit

Pāṇini is said to have lived at the end of the Vedic period.

 

From "Pāṇini Sootram"

 

"Nama Sivaya" is the "Moola Mantra", which alone is capable of conferring full benefit to the person reciting this five letter mantra or "Panchakshari" mantra at all times and there are no restrictions as to time, place, caste, creed or sex.

 

Now the greatness of the six-letter mantra "Om Nama Sivaya" is discussed. Both the words "OM" and "Nama Sivaya" are stated in the Vedas and hence both are Vedic mantras unlike other mantras possessing immense power or energy stored in them and recitation of a combination of these two mantras releases immense energy. Hence, one should be wary in reciting this Shadakshari mantra.

 

The author says that the mantra "Siva" as well as the Panchakshari mantra "Namah Sivaya" can be recited by each and everyone irrespective of caste, creed, religion, sex, etc., while those who have taken Gayatri Mantra alone, should recite Shadakshari mantra or "Om Namah Sivaya". The Sanyasis or the persons, who have renounced the world, alone have right to recite "OMKARAM" and not by householders belonging to any caste, creed or religion. The reason is that the mantras "Om" and "Namah Sivaya" are Vedic mantras with high power like the high-tension electricity wires a touch of which by uninitiated persons may result in "Vipareetha Phalams" or shocks. Since, "Namah Sivaya" mantra, which is the "Moola mantra", is itself powerful to confer all boons, uninitiated person should not recite "Shadakshari mantra", says the author, Mudigonda Nagalinga Sastry garu in his work Dharma Sangraha, Aahnikanda, because some Agama Sastras are objecting for their recitation by uninitiated persons.

 

The simple meaning of the Shadakshari mantra "Om Namah Sivaya" is : "Sivaya" means to Siva, "Namah" means salutations to Him, "Om" means, by reciting Whose name only once, He who can take away the Jeevas upwards. The Adharva Siropanishad is replying to the question "Sakrud Uchaaryamaane, Oortham Praanaa Nunnamaya Teetyom?" as "Adha Kasmaad Uchatey Omkaraha". This Adharva Siropanishad mantra is stating, as to why Siva is stated as "Omkaram" and gives the reply that Siva alone can take the Jeevas upwards by reciting His name only once and hence Siva is called as "Omkara Vachya".

 

peace out

Edited December 18, 2011 by jijaji

[Tibetan_Ice]

You may enjoy this as well:

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-1

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-2

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-3

 

http://minet.org/Documents/shank-4

 

Hi Jijaji

You are right. I enjoyed reading that. Thank you very much. In fact I read it over a few times.

The part that really struck me is this (aside from the dishonesty, deceit and fraud):

Shankaracharya: So far as `Yoga Darshan' (the Yoga Sutras of Maharishi

Patanjali) is concerned, the first step of the `Yoga Darshan' is `Chitta

vritti nirodaha' or control of the fluctuations of the mind. Achievement

of Yoga practice is the state of `Samadhi' and `Samadhi' is the goal

of the practice. When the Sadhaka (practitioner) reaches the state

of `Samadhi' then he may attain some Sidhis like travelling through

space, seeing distant objects, etc. But these are obstacles and one

should not be attached to these Sidhis, for they do positive disservice

to the Sadhakas and their use can cause reversal of spiritual achievement.

These Sidhis come of their own accord, naturally to anyone engaged

in meditation. But, if the goal is to obtain and use Sidhis then it

is a perversion. These are obstacles in the way of samadhi and one

should not have any sense of attachment with them, otherwise something

undesirable may happen. Any attachment with them is not expected of

any yogi.

A person would conclude that AYP's samyama practice, which contains the same instructions as the TM-Siddhi practice, is also subject to the same analysis. In fact, it can be argued that AYP is supporting the development of siddhis in it's practice of 'samyama', much to the detriment of it's members.

 

The other point I resonate with is the mention of "control of the fluctuations of mind", which is Patanjali's dharana. It again implies effort, willpower: control. It is not an effortless release of a mantra and the following of it as it dissolves into nothingness as AYP's Deep Meditation practice is.

 

Besides, the MMY's method of flying is not what I learned about many years ago. I was taught that levitation is caused by the udana current, from throat to crown, and that once a yogi mastered this current, that is, could augment it's energy and force, levitation and flight was possible. I spent a month when I was a teenager, practising the levitation meditation for an hour a day and I did experience this current. The way I describe it is that it feel like an upside-down waterfall in the center of your neck and head, which pulls you upward. But first, I had to be in samadhi, my body had to dissolve and I would become a cloud of whitish light. It took lots of effort and concentration. Exactly like Patanjali says in samyama.

 

It is also very interesting that in India, selling mantras, spiritual knowledge is frowned upon:

In India, dharma,

yoga, knowledge, specialized knowledge can never be sold for money.

That is priceless. Anyone who puts a price on it insults it. So, a

mantra is also never given for money. Knowledge cannot be sold for

money.

Is this true?

 

I did notice that the Gnani Purush does not sell his ceremony called Gnan Vidhi, which is supposed to make a person realize the atman. It is free for all. He does not even solicit donations according to what I read.

Isn't it wonderful that some people still have integrity?

http://www.dadabhagwan.org/gnan-vidhi-knowledge-of-self/introduction/what-is-gnan-vidhi/

 

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

this may be useful as well

 

http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm

 

Hi Jijaji

Actually I found that site about two months ago when I started to question the AYP hidden lineage..

 

Thanks.

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

some chanting of Om stuff, and this is hard core ancient stuff

 

Pāṇini 600-500 BCE who's grammar defines Classical Sanskrit

Pāṇini is said to have lived at the end of the Vedic period.

 

From "Pāṇini Sootram"

 

"Nama Sivaya" is the "Moola Mantra", which alone is capable of conferring full benefit to the person reciting this five letter mantra or "Panchakshari" mantra at all times and there are no restrictions as to time, place, caste, creed or sex.

 

Now the greatness of the six-letter mantra "Om Nama Sivaya" is discussed. Both the words "OM" and "Nama Sivaya" are stated in the Vedas and hence both are Vedic mantras unlike other mantras possessing immense power or energy stored in them and recitation of a combination of these two mantras releases immense energy. Hence, one should be wary in reciting this Shadakshari mantra.

 

The author says that the mantra "Siva" as well as the Panchakshari mantra "Namah Sivaya" can be recited by each and everyone irrespective of caste, creed, religion, sex, etc., while those who have taken Gayatri Mantra alone, should recite Shadakshari mantra or "Om Namah Sivaya". The Sanyasis or the persons, who have renounced the world, alone have right to recite "OMKARAM" and not by householders belonging to any caste, creed or religion. The reason is that the mantras "Om" and "Namah Sivaya" are Vedic mantras with high power like the high-tension electricity wires a touch of which by uninitiated persons may result in "Vipareetha Phalams" or shocks. Since, "Namah Sivaya" mantra, which is the "Moola mantra", is itself powerful to confer all boons, uninitiated person should not recite "Shadakshari mantra", says the author, Mudigonda Nagalinga Sastry garu in his work Dharma Sangraha, Aahnikanda, because some Agama Sastras are objecting for their recitation by uninitiated persons.

 

The simple meaning of the Shadakshari mantra "Om Namah Sivaya" is : "Sivaya" means to Siva, "Namah" means salutations to Him, "Om" means, by reciting Whose name only once, He who can take away the Jeevas upwards. The Adharva Siropanishad is replying to the question "Sakrud Uchaaryamaane, Oortham Praanaa Nunnamaya Teetyom?" as "Adha Kasmaad Uchatey Omkaraha". This Adharva Siropanishad mantra is stating, as to why Siva is stated as "Omkaram" and gives the reply that Siva alone can take the Jeevas upwards by reciting His name only once and hence Siva is called as "Omkara Vachya".

 

peace out

Hi Jijaji

I've been using "AUM NAMA SHIVAYA" quite a bit over the last few years. I first found it on the Himalayan Monks site here:

link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-23.html

Panchakshara Is Perfection

 

Aum Namah Sivaya is such a precious mantra because it is the closest sound that one can make to emulate the sounds rushing out of the Self into the mind. Chanting it is profound because it is a sound channel which you can follow to get close to the Self of your self -- sort of like following a river upstream to yourself. Aum Namah Sivaya can be equated with Siva's drum of creation, called damaru. When Aum Namah Sivaya is repeated, we go through the chakras, Na-Ma Shi-Va-Ya Aum. The Aum is in the head chakra. Within Namah Sivaya is each of the elements -- earth, water, fire, air and ether -- which in the mind are transmuted into all-pervasive consciousness, and that is also transmuted into the great chakra way above the head at the end of the Aum. In just the breath, the space of time between the next repetition of "Aum Namah Sivaya...Aum Namah Sivaya...Aum Namah Sivaya," the pranas, having reached Parasiva, fall back into the spiritual, mental, astral and physical worlds, blessing them all with new energy, new life and new understanding. "Namah Sivaya Aum, Namah Sivaya Aum, Namah Sivaya Aum, Namah Sivaya Aum" is the constant process of life. It is the essence of life itself. We must realize that at any given moment we are a complete Parasiva-Satchidananda jiva, only working on the "Maheshvara part" -- on the jiva's becoming Siva. Parasiva is there. Satchidananda is there. The maturity of the purusha, of the jiva, the embodied soul, is not. Therefore, Aum Namah Sivaya takes us into the reality above and beyond the relatively real. To know it is to experience it, and to experience it is to become initiated.

 

I've also used AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA for activating each chakra. It is quite powerful.

The technique is listed here:

link: http://www.hardlight.org/om_namah_shivaya.html

The mantra Om Namah Shivaya can be analyzed according to the elements, chakras and colors:

 

OM arises at the sixth chakra, and is associated with the mind. The mind has no element. It is essentially a formless vortex of light.

 

NA arises at the root chakra at the base of the spine and is associated with the element of Earth and is yellow in color.

 

MA arises at the second chakra and is associated with the element of water and is green in color.

 

SHI arises at the third chakra at the navel and is associated with the element of fire and is red in color.

 

VA arises at the fourth chakra at the heart and is associated with the element of air and is white in color.

 

YA arises at the fifth chakra at the throat and is associated with the element of ether and is blue in color.

It is somewhat unconventional, but I think the main principle, which is universal, is that one can activate chakras by using a mechanism to focus attention, will and prana on them. Just breathing into a thought or point of focus with deep attention is quite powerful it it's own right.

 

As a matter of fact, it was through this practice that I discovered that the AUM was causing a roundish white light to appear from the heart and progress towards the ajna.

 

AUM SHANTI

TI