Patanjali's Sutras and Samyama questions

[guruyoga]

Sri Adi Shankaracharya is said to have organized the ashrama (order) of Sannnyasins (monks) into ten groups. Which of these titles is associated with which of the four Monasteries (Amnaya Matha based on four Amnayas of Tantra) established by him is a slightly varying list. There are several texts ascribed to the great Guru himself, such as Mathamnayopanishat, Mathamnaya Mahanushasana, Mathamnayasetu etc. Generally, the accepted classification is:

 

Sharada Mutt of Dvaraka - Tirtha, Ashrama

Govardhana Mutt of Puri - Vana, Aranya

Jyotirmatha of Badarikashrama - Giri, Parvata, Sagara

Sringeri Mutt - Sarasvati, Bharati, Puri

 

Generally, the Shankaracharya's of these Amnaya mutts do not directly initiate anyone but for their direct successor. However, there are generally associated Sannyasins and branch mutts which bear the same titles as one of the four main mutts (eg. Svarnavalli, Yedatore, Koodali etc. are all associated mutts of Sringeri) and these initiate the qualified into the order of monks.

 

True, Swami Satyananda Saraswati of Bihar school of Yoga was initiated by Swami Shivananda Saraswati of Rishikesh, and he in turn was initiated into Dashanami Sampraday of the monks by Vishwananda Saraswati.

 

However, it is not always easy to determine association with a Mutt/region simply based on the title or Ashrama-nama.

 

For e.g. H H Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the famous Vedic mathematician, was initiated into 'Tirtha' oder by Sri Trivikrama Tirtha of Dvaraka Mutt, but later took the post of Shankaracharya of Govardhana Mutt.

 

It is quite possible that Swami Krishnananda Saraswati was initiated by someone associated with Sringeri Mutt, or even not, for the said reasons. However, when H H Brahmananda Saraswati was nominated as the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmutt, the celebrated Avadhuta and Jivanmuka, H H Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati of Sringeri endorsed him - this could either be due to the the former's association with the Sringeri Mutt or more possibly due to his great qualification for the post.

Edited December 25, 2011 by guruyoga

[guruyoga]

[xabir2005]

Well, in case of Advaita Vedanta, there is a specific interpretation on what omniscience is - in the case of an enlightened person.

 

Brahman or the Supreme Consciousness is of two kinds:

Saguna (with attributes i.e. Maya, called Ishvara) and Nirguna (without attributes).

 

Nirguna Brahman pervades all that is in the universe, and is the substratum of everything. When an enlightened person i.e. the knower of the Brahman as the true nature of one’s own radiant Self, can be called omniscient (all-knowing) because he knows the substratum of all that IS in the universe. He knows not very little superficial detail. In spite of being enlightened - he may not know Scotty’s hair color, or Seth’s preference for red/white wines - but his omniscience is defined as the knowledge of the essential nature of everything. Since the projected universe of names and forms is Maya and illusive, they would not matter to him, for, he is established in the true essence there is. However, Ishvara’s existence, unlike that of the Jiva or Soul, is not dependent upon Maya or on names on forms. Jiva incarnates based on their karma whereas Ishvara appears due to his own free will. Thus, though the rulership of Ishvara is relative to a ruled entity, his omnipotence to the sphere of activity etc., his omnipotence and omniscience are not the same as those of a Realized Soul. Shankara also clarifies that the highest knowers of Saguna Brahman can (if so inclined), attain powers “similar” to Ishvara but still are not omnipotent for they cannot do many things, such as creation of the universe and so on. Thus, we have the non-dual level of Nirguna Brahman which is realized by the Jnani and this has nothing to do with omniscience and omnipotence as interpreted in levels of duality.

In Buddhism, an Arhant also comprehend the nature of reality - but its not Brahman, but dependent origination, and the three seals. However, this is not the Buddha's 'omniscience' - the Buddha's omniscience means he can know any thing (including Scott's hair color), what is happening in another alien universe, etc... if he wishes to know.

 

Bodhisattvas, Arhants realized nature of reality of everything, but not omniscience in the sense of what I said above

 

So the Buddhist understanding of omniscience is not really similar to Advaita.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/qualities_buddha_omniscient_deep_aw.html

 

Maitreya’s Filigree of Realizations (mNgon-rtogs rgyan, Skt. Abhisamaya-alamkara) delineates twenty-one categories of untainted deep awareness (zag-med ye-shes sde-tshan nyer-cig) of a Buddha’s omniscient mind. Often, four of these categories are singled out when describing the qualities of a Buddha’s omniscience:

 

the ten forces (stobs-bcu),

 

the four (guarantees) about which he is fearless (mi-‘jigs-pa bzhi),

 

the four perfect awarenesses of individual points (so-so yang-dag-par rig-pa bzhi),

 

the eighteen unshared features of a Buddha (sangs-rgyas-kyi chos ma-’dres-pa bcu-brgyad).

Edited December 25, 2011 by xabir2005

[guruyoga]

the Buddha's omniscience means he can know any thing (including Scott's hair color), what is happening in another alien universe, etc... if he wishes to know.

 

 

How many have attained Buddhahood, say in the last 100 to 500 years, or anytime at all outside of Tibetan hagiography?

 

That said, let's not hijack this thread with more Buddhist discussion please! I am partly guilty of that myself here... There are very few 'non-Buddhist' topics discussed on this forum already and we can show some courtesy not going Buddhist on those as well...

Edited December 25, 2011 by guruyoga

[xabir2005]

How many have attained Buddhahood, say in the last 100 to 500 years, or anytime at all outside of Tibetan hagiography?

 

That said, let's not hijack this thread with more Buddhist discussion please! I am partly guilty of that myself here... There are very few 'non-Buddhist' topics discussed on this forum already and we can show some courtesy not going Buddhist on those as well...

Ok

[dwai]

How many have attained Buddhahood, say in the last 100 to 500 years, or anytime at all outside of Tibetan hagiography?

 

That said, let's not hijack this thread with more Buddhist discussion please! I am partly guilty of that myself here... There are very few 'non-Buddhist' topics discussed on this forum already and we can show some courtesy not going Buddhist on those as well...

They want seth back or another body to make their numbers...old saying goes that there's safety in numbers...

[jijaji]

guruyoga,

 

always a pleasure reading your astute, informative posts

 

namaskaram,

 

 

jijaji

 

[jijaji]

However, when H H Brahmananda Saraswati was nominated as the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmutt, the celebrated Avadhuta and Jivanmuka, H H Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati of Sringeri endorsed him - this could either be due to the the former's association with the Sringeri Mutt or more possibly due to his great qualification for the post.

 

guruyoga,

 

I would be interested in hearing your take on the Kanchi Math controversy at some point if that is not too off topic or perhaps in another thread.

 

jijaji

[3bob]

In Buddhism, an Arhant also comprehend the nature of reality - but its not Brahman, but dependent origination, and the three seals. However, this is not the Buddha's 'omniscience' - the Buddha's omniscience means he can know any thing (including Scott's hair color), what is happening in another alien universe, etc... if he wishes to know.

 

Bodhisattvas, Arhants realized nature of reality of everything, but not omniscience in the sense of what I said above

 

So the Buddhist understanding of omniscience is not really similar to Advaita.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/qualities_buddha_omniscient_deep_aw.html

 

Maitreya’s Filigree of Realizations (mNgon-rtogs rgyan, Skt. Abhisamaya-alamkara) delineates twenty-one categories of untainted deep awareness (zag-med ye-shes sde-tshan nyer-cig) of a Buddha’s omniscient mind. Often, four of these categories are singled out when describing the qualities of a Buddha’s omniscience:

 

the ten forces (stobs-bcu),

 

the four (guarantees) about which he is fearless (mi-‘jigs-pa bzhi),

 

the four perfect awarenesses of individual points (so-so yang-dag-par rig-pa bzhi),

 

the eighteen unshared features of a Buddha (sangs-rgyas-kyi chos ma-’dres-pa bcu-brgyad).

 

------------

Xabir knows enough to sound plausible which may although I'm not sure make him one of the more dangerous people when it comes to misinterpretation of Sanatana Dharma, yet unlike certain others I think he trys to follow "right speech" and I'd also tend to believe by the studies he has mentioned that he recognizes the contribution of the "7th liberation" as taught to the historic Buddha by his Vedic based or related teachers. (Btw, Sanatana Dharma does not stop at the 7th liberation even though it is often dismissed as doing so by some)

 

An Isa upanishad teaching for your consideration:

(a problem not only limited to "Hindusim")

 

".... 9. Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

10. One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

 

11. He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

 

12. Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

 

13. One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

 

14. He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti..."

 

Om

Edited December 25, 2011 by 3bob

[guruyoga]

guruyoga,

 

I would be interested in hearing your take on the Kanchi Math controversy at some point if that is not too off topic or perhaps in another thread.

 

jijaji

 

 

Dear Jijaji,

 

Thank you for the kind words.

 

Having been personally associated with seers of three of the Mutts (Sringeri, Kanchi and Badari/Dvaraka - which currently *has a common head), I am not sure how objective I am going to be on this topic. IMO, Kanchi Mutt is simply a Kumbhakonam branch of Sringeri and nothing more. Vidyashankar Sundareshan has a scholarly paper on the history of Kanchi Mutt, let me see if I can find it

Edited December 26, 2011 by guruyoga

[jijaji]

Kanchi Mutt is simply a Kumbhakonam branch of Sringeri and nothing more

 

Sri Chandrasekharendra MahaSwamiji thought differently didn't he?

 

I thought he was the proponent of Kanchi Mutt being originally established by Shankaracarya himself. Please explain.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

[dwai]

Yogani is an annonymous male who wrote a sensationlistic book of fiction called "The Secrets of Wilder", in which John Wilder invents kundalini yoga entirely on his own through trial and error. Yogani has written several very short books about his interpretation of the Eight Limbs of Yoga and more. They contain many nebulous terms which he uses interchangeably throughout his writings, such as "inner silence', "stillness in action", "ecstatic conductivity", "bliss consciousness" etc..

 

He has published his 'lessons' online and hosts a forum from which, if you do not support his views or pose too many disruptive questions, you will be banned. I have seen many astute minds and excellent communicators become banned for supporting their non-AYP views on the forum. What remains is mostly a tribe of parrots and brown-nosers who push AYP practices as the solution for all. Several people on his forum have no bones about declaring that they are enlightened.

 

Further, if you post on his forum, you will not be able to edit or delete your posts after 14 days, yet he advertises that "Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors)". The AYP system is an attempt by Yogani to marry TM, TM-Siddhis and Kriya yoga techniques into a system of yoga. He claims that inner silence is cultivated and that it grows through Deep Meditation. Any topic about chakras is considered "under the hood".

 

In an effort to mitigate the common overloads from cultivating kundalini energy flows, Yogani introduces the idea of self-pacing. After many years of AYP practices, there are some members who cannot perform his practices without severe overload. This problem has not been resolved.

 

According to what Yogani has posted here (next), even he is subject to overloads and claims that "no great sage has been beyond it's effects":

 

 

 

Further, experiences are referred to as scenery, and as such don't count for much. In one of his posts, he says this about the other planes:

 

 

Yogani's main emphasis is on practices and cultivating the neurobiology. He claims to have been doing so for over 40 years.

 

And although it is called "Advanced Yoga Practices", he says that the "Advanced" in "Advanced Yoga Practices" actually refers to the communication media that he uses to disseminate his teachings.

 

If a person were to buy all of his books that he sells through his publishing company, it would cost you a few hundred dollars.

 

His moderators host AYP retreats, yet they have never had the benefit of meeting him in person, nor have they ever received any shaktipat or personal instruction, only through the electronic media. Yogani discounts the importance of shaktipat and a personal guru, thus, his famous expression is "The Guru is in you".

 

Well, that's enough of that.

 

TI

 

It all seems very dubious to me...starting with the name - is it an acronym of some sort or an ignorant use of the word "yogini" which refers to a female yogi? And this potpuorri of styles being rebranded and sold by a mysterious individual and his propaganda machine adds to that dubious image.

[Jeff]

It all seems very dubious to me...starting with the name - is it an acronym of some sort or an ignorant use of the word "yogini" which refers to a female yogi? And this potpuorri of styles being rebranded and sold by a mysterious individual and his propaganda machine adds to that dubious image.

 

I think everyone is being a little harsh on AYP. Before judging, I would recommend that everyone actually take a look at the AYP site. Yogani (and others) have put together a set of practices that many find very useful. Also, I have actually been able to spend a few hours at one of the AYP retreats. The leaders are knowledgable and very caring in a non-guru framework. During my short time at the retreat, I felt a meaningful impact on my energy practices.

 

[jijaji]

It all seems very dubious to me...starting with the name - is it an acronym of some sort or an ignorant use of the word "yogini" which refers to a female yogi? And this potpuorri of styles being rebranded and sold by a mysterious individual and his propaganda machine adds to that dubious image.

 

your post has put me into a laughing spell

 

[guruyoga]

Sri Chandrasekharendra MahaSwamiji thought differently didn't he?

 

I thought he was the proponent of Kanchi Mutt being originally established by Shankaracarya himself. Please explain.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

 

 

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

[Seth Ananda]

They want seth back or another body to make their numbers...old saying goes that there's safety in numbers...

Rofl!

[Seth Ananda]

[guruyoga]

 

What about Neem Karoli Bubba? He seemed to know pretty much everything about anything. He could tell his students exactly what a relative of theirs was doing and thinking at that moment, or 15 years ago, and what they had for breakfast the day they decided to enter their spiritual path...

The students of his that I have met, and the students in the book on him are entirely convinced that has was capable of knowing anything in any detail about anything, Including in languages he did not speak...

 

True, my post was only stating that omniscience was not a necessary thing for enlightenment. The former Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt was also one such figure. His powers of knowing anything and everything was well-known. He once told me names of my ancestors up to nine generations - something which even I had to go and check. There have been several such luminaries. Paramahamsa Vishuddhanada Saraswati was one other such Siddha, Yogananda talks of him as Gandha Baba in his book and does not really 'get' him

[Seth Ananda]

Paramahamsa Vishuddhanada Saraswati was one other such Siddha, Yogananda talks of him as Gandha Baba in his book and does not really 'get' him

Hehe, how could anyone 'get' someone like that?

 

This is a subject I am very Interested in. There may be different levels of Enlightenment in different schools, but wouldn't most schools have Omniscience as automatic in the Higher stages of Enlightenment? In KS for instance a Yogi that passes through Vidya Kanchuka, is Omniscient...

 

Also many people have short, before enlightenment experiences of Omniscience or something close to it...

I for instance occasionally in mystical Union have short experiences of something I have been thinking of lately as Local Omniscience.

I call it 'local' because it tends to be relative to where my attention goes.

In other words I do not literally know everything, from every time, in every world, all at once.

But So far it has never been wrong, and when I have thought about a person in this state, I have got to 'know' all kinds of things about them, including accurately seeing moments from their past...

 

What do other Traditions have to say about such experiences?

 

Blessings

[dwai]

Hehe, how could anyone 'get' someone like that?

 

This is a subject I am very Interested in. There may be different levels of Enlightenment in different schools, but wouldn't most schools have Omniscience as automatic in the Higher stages of Enlightenment? In KS for instance a Yogi that passes through Vidya Kanchuka, is Omniscient...

 

Also many people have short, before enlightenment experiences of Omniscience or something close to it...

I for instance occasionally in mystical Union have short experiences of something I have been thinking of lately as Local Omniscience.

I call it 'local' because it tends to be relative to where my attention goes.

In other words I do not literally know everything, from every time, in every world, all at once.

But So far it has never been wrong, and when I have thought about a person in this state, I have got to 'know' all kinds of things about them, including accurately seeing moments from their past...

 

What do other Traditions have to say about such experiences?

 

Blessings

 

My maternal grand-uncle, a shakta tantrik and a sannyasi would sometimes(after great pestering) show people their future in a large conch filled with water ( iirc it was called a vishnu conch), ie visually. He also had the ability to prevent someone from leaving their physical body...he had to do that with his brother-in-law ( my mother's father) while he was in his deathbed. He did it so the family members could say their goodbyes...

[Tibetan_Ice]

[Tibetan_Ice]

I think everyone is being a little harsh on AYP. Before judging, I would recommend that everyone actually take a look at the AYP site. Yogani (and others) have put together a set of practices that many find very useful. Also, I have actually been able to spend a few hours at one of the AYP retreats. The leaders are knowledgable and very caring in a non-guru framework. During my short time at the retreat, I felt a meaningful impact on my energy practices.

 

 

Hi Jeff

Harsh?

Now who exactly is being harsh?

I judge a person by how I am being treated. At AYP, Yogani was coercing me into towing the AYP line, as I'm sure he has done to many others whom he has banned over the years. Chinna, Manigma, etc..

Pehaps you have not received emails from Yogani like I have.

 

Like this one (bolded instead of quoted):

 

"TI, you simply are not qualified to advise on the AYP system. Your ever-diverging approach to spiritual practice is inconsistent with AYP, and should be reserved for yourself, and not suggested to anyone who is attempting to engage in the AYP approach.

 

It is requested that you limit your posting to the "other systems" forum category, and nowhere else. This is the only way we can continue to accommodate you."

 

or this one:

(bolded instead of quoted)

 

" Hi TI:

 

I wrote this to the moderators this morning after they rejected your last post, and rightly so. Do take it to heart...

 

----------------------

 

Hi All:

 

The truth is, AYP does not work for everyone. There seems to be a minority that it does not work for, for whatever reason. This can be said about any system.

 

One size does not fit all. I believe AYP goes further than most systems in attempting to adjust to individual differences through open source application, self-pacing, etc. But it is still not going to be the answer for everyone.

 

Apparently not for TI. If this is the case, and his only purpose here is to paint the whole thing black for everyone, then he is not welcome.

 

Thanks for moderating it. If he insists on continuing along this line, he will be blocked from posting.

 

The guru is in you."

 

And further, after 4 years or AYP meditation and practices, I came upon a realization about mantra meditation, that perhaps I should have been concentrating awareness instead of saying the mantra and letting it go in silence, which is the AYP method. So I started examining the practice..

I posed these questions on the forum:

 

Hi Yogani,

I'm very confused now.

 

Isn't Deep Meditation very similar if not identical to TM (aside from the choice of mantra)?

 

I thought in Deep Meditation, the meaning behind the mantra doesn't matter. The mantra is used for it's sound quality only, and the effect of descending into inner silence is produced by the way that mantra is used. Very simple, and apparently effective.

 

1) So why is the "i am" mantra the name of God? The meaning behind that mantra is very hard to ignore. It is also two of the most used words in the english language. "I am..." Even "AYAM" is the name of God. Have you considered the psychological impact of erasing the meaning in the mantra and using it like a tool?

 

2) Why have you come out with variations to the mantra? If the original technique is effective, what is to be gained by adding to it? (I've never heard of anyone from TM or similar meditation styles changing their mantras, they all say that you keep that mantra for life. ) Having variations of the mantra is like putting more emphasis on the particular mantra that is being used. This leads people to believe that the mantra has a particular power or effect, when really, to transcend into inner silence, the mantra itself is superfluous (doesn't matter). Isn't it the mental repetition of a simple sound that produces the 'transcending' effect? At what point does altering the mantra change the practice sufficiently to a point where you are no longer performing the orignal simple technique?

 

3) Why do you claim that the resonation of the mantra is clearing pathways and working on the nervous system? Putting emphasis on the resonation of the mantra and the 'work it does' makes a person want to repeat it louder and with lots of energy, at least that is the way I see it. It leads one away from the simple original practice. And it kind of contradicts the idea that we use the mantra just for the sound of it. It's a high-powered cleanser too!

 

4) If there is power in the mantra, why would anyone want to let it become fuzzy and non-distinct? At a fuzzy level, there may be no difference between "i am" or "ayeammm" or "ayeeemmmma" etc. Gee, I wonder what pathways I'm clearing now with that metamorphed version? See what I mean?

 

5) Isn't coming out with "Solar centering technique" teaching that it is ok to locate the mantra at a specific point in the body? You do mention that doing so splits the attention. You also mention that "should the location change...". Well, at some point monitoring the mantra to see where it is coming from is not the same simple original practice.. Isn't 'monitoring the location of the mantra' the same as 'being off of the mantra'? Which is true? Isn't this a contradiction? Why elaborate on or invent a practice that contradicts a previous teaching/

 

With all your variations and elaborations of the usage of the mantra in deep meditation, aren't you are leading the practioner away from a very simple technique? Aren't those variations and elaborations serving to anchor a practioner in thoughts at the surface of the mind?

 

 

TI

 

 

And, instead of answering my questions, Yogani attacked my practices. Very skillful, isn't it? My questions obviously expose the inconsistencies in the AYP practices, and instead of addressing each question, Yogani (and other AYP members start attacking me.. )

 

(bolded instead of quoted)

"Hi TI:

 

Everything you have asked is covered in the lessons.

 

You are confused (and often confuse others) because you are analyzing endlessly instead of settling in with a practice. There can be no help for it except for you to surrender your mind to a singular path, AYP or other, which has not happened yet. I am waiting...

 

Your mega-topic "Where am I at now?" says it all. You will not know where you are at until you can stop asking the question. That is the crux of it. It has nothing to do with your latest list of questions or doubts.

 

Sorry, there is little else I can say to you at this point. We have been going in circles with this stuff for years. It should be highlighted as the primary issue you face in your practice, and so it has been.

 

All the best!

 

The guru is in you.

 

 

PS: I am moving this topic to "others system" because it is not really an AYP practice question. It is more dissection and comparative analysis, which is not helpful for those seeking to stabilize a daily practice of deep meditation."

 

 

We have not been going in circles with stuff for years. I just had started asking questions about Deep Meditation. Further, you see the action of Yogani of moving topics to other folders to make AYP folders seem like one big happy family, customizing and altering his forum for positive effect.

 

Then later, in the same post, Yogani says this:

 

(bolded instead of quoted)

"Hi TI:

 

You mentioned 5-6 teachings/traditions in your last post. You are never going to be able to develop a stable practice that way.

 

Just meditate with one method, and cut the mind crap. It is that simple.

 

As for AYP revealing too much, no one asked you to skip ahead and try to absorb everything at once. There are no contradictions for those who start at the beginning and go through the middle and end stage practices at the appropriate times. You want to analyze and understand everything (everywhere) before you even begin. So you have not yet begun real practice, which is doing one thing for at least a few years.

 

Is it the hammer's fault if the carpenter keeps hitting his thumb with it?

 

Sorry to be so blunt, but the analysis obsession is the primary obstruction to your progress. More analysis (like you are doing above) will not solve it. You will not get your practice in gear until you let it go. The mind cannot grasp the essence of good practice, or its results. This is why we use simple mechanical techniques. This enables the mind to let go in time. It is not complicated. If we keep dissecting with the mind, keeping the mind in front, there can be no real progress. You cannot analyze your way to enlightenment. Neither can you analyze your way into a stable long term practice. It just ain't going to happen until you learn to let it go.

 

In spiritual practice, the role of the mind is to make consistent long term choices, not to endlessly analyze and second guess. The first assures our progress. The second holds us back.

 

TI, this is all you are going to hear from me, because it is the only thing that matters in your case, and for all of us. I believe you have heard it from here quite a few times already. And when you do not hear from me when you raise your next batch of doubts and questions, you may want to read this post again.

 

All the best!

 

The guru is in you."

 

Here Yogani has forgotten that I had been in AYP for four years and misleads the readership by suggesting that I shouldn't be reading ahead!

And again, instead of addressing my questions and concerns, he evades the concerns and again focuses on my practices, implying that I don't have a regular practice. What a deception! But it worked. Other AYP members start hitting on me for "lack of consistent practice" although they know nothing about my practices at that point.

 

Then Later in the thread, an AYP member called Joe posted this:

"my own way would be to use affirmations to draw energy away from analysis and doubt and apply it to devotion through bhakti."so Yogani follows through with this:

 

(bolded instead of quoted)

"PS: I do not recall TI ever stating a desire to transform his propensity to analyze into a more effective mode of spiritual endeavor. Coming to and stating that desire is surely the first step, as Joe has done so clearly above. Obviously, we cannot tell someone to do it, even though we often do.

Ultimately, it has to come from within each of us."

 

Unbelievable! Now Yogani, who speaks out of the pitfalls of having a living guru, who says it leads to dependancy and possible ill treatment, is playing guru and trying to get me to drop analytical analysis of AYP practices and practice a more effective mode of spiritual practice (like bhakti). The two are unrelated. Analysis of practices is a separate thing from practices. One does not analyze practices while one is practising. One picks a practice and performs it. I have every right to ask about clarification of practices.

 

Then, Yogani tries to downplay the importance of intelligence, which later he calls scholarly analysis:

(bolded instead of quoted)

"Hi TI:

 

Unfortunately, intellectual intelligence counts for nothing in yoga. In fact, it is a liability, as we have been discussing. Perhaps this is why Jesus said, "The meek shall inherit the earth."

 

Fortunately, the kind of intelligence we need for yoga is in infinite supply in all of us. All we have to do is let go into it, becoming it. This is what the simple techniques of yoga are about. There is nothing more to understand than that.

 

The guru is in you. "

 

Yes, it is a common phenomenon for teachers to quote Jesus. I suppose it makes them believe that they have more credibility. However, I found that Jesus quote totally unrelated to "intellectual intelligence", so I wonder why he put it in there..

 

Then, later, he writes back to Joe, making it seem like analysis is my primary tool for travelling the spiritual path. Twist away! I was asking for clarification of the AYP Deep Meditation technique and wondering why it was something simple and yet through Yogani's writings, became an all-round swiss army knife that not only brought one to inner silence, but purified and seemed to be the prerequisite for all practises.

 

(bolded instead of quoted)

"I have been wracking my brain trying to come up with a justification for traveling the spiritual path using analysis as the primary tool, so I could offer TI and others with this orientation some sort of handle to proceed according to that tendency. But I have come up with nothing. It is totally beyond the mind (and the wracked brain), and that's a good thing. But not for those stuck in mental analysis to the detriment of long term stable practice. Not sure how those with strong analytical tendencies can get out of this."

 

Further, Jnana Yoga is the yoga of knowledge. Advaita is also a form of Knowledge or realization. Analysis is a valid path, but that is not my concern. I was trying to get clarity about the AYP practices and why they do not resemble classical yoga practices.

 

Anytime anyone twists questions and makes it seem like the person who is asking questions is lost because they don't have regular practices, it disturbs me. I was being mistreated and abused. Yogani had no right to say what he did. I was asking sincere questions, albeit questions which required a little more skill to answer.

 

Further, blackmailing me into suppressing my opinions and questions by banning me from posting to certain topics and threatining to block all my posts is not something I take kindly to.

I thought that "Freedom of Speech" was a constitutional right in USA?

In no way have any of posts been malicious or offensive in nature. Yet, here is the AYP guideline that was emailed to me:

 

(bolded instead of quoted)

" A forum moderator has decided to reject your post for the following reason:

 

Your post is not approved because it contains statements about the authenticity, validity or status of principles, persons or scriptures in religions or spiritual teachings. People have very different and often deep-seated opinions about these subjects, and therefore discussions about them will often create heated debates. Such can be interesting, revealing and entertaining, but would take away focus from spiritual practices. Attempts to discredit by logic, scholarship or any other means, of gurus, religious or public figures (guru bashing), should also be avoided, for the same reason. The AYP forum is intended to be a medium for discussion of Advanced Yoga Practices and related subject matters, and "other systems" is for discussing other systems, not AYP."

 

How is that for forcing all AYP members to refrain from expressing their opinions? And doesn't that tell you that most all opinions on the forum are going to be in support of AYP? Just one side of the dualistic spectrum.

 

So you see, Jeff, I have no more time for AYP. I feel sorry for it's members, that they are asked to wear blinders and follow the customized practices without question. I feel sorry for new members, whom, despite their symptoms and spiritual background are told to start Deep Meditation and Spinal Breathing regardless. And I feel sorry for the general public who come across AYP because they have no idea of the background politics that occur at AYP.

 

You know, I was reading the other in Saraswati's book called "Kundalini Tantra", this:

 

Some people think they should practise a lot of meditation or pranayama when

kundalini is ascending so it will go straight to sushumna. However, I don't think

meditation is necessary anymore, because when kundalini is in the process of transition,

you can do nothing with your mind. If it is quiet, it is quiet, nothing can disturb it. If your

mind is agitated, you can do nothing about it because that is the effect of the awakening

of kundalini. It is not the effect of your practice.

 

What does that say about AYP's general suggestion to start Deep Meditation and Spinal Breathing, regardless of even knowing what the person's energetic state is in?

 

 

And lastly, Buddha said:

"

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. "

TI

Edited December 27, 2011 by Tibetan_Ice

[guruyoga]

that perhaps I should have been concentrating awareness instead of saying the mantra and letting it go in silence.

 

 

Absolutely! Awareness is what kindles the power of the mantra. I always tell my students - you should both recite and listen to the mantra at the same time, to drive home this point. Mantra recitation is neither a passive practice nor something intended to drive one into a trance by repeated mechanical activity (like TM or DM). A great siddha of yore said, "what is the use of a mantra that is recited without a heart full of love and a mind bright with awareness?"

 

AYP forum has always been touchy about questioning or criticism. For me, it is a path that lacks soul or heart, has the skeletal structure, but no soul.

Edited December 27, 2011 by guruyoga

[jijaji]

T.I.,

 

I am sorry for any pain you are having over this, surely there is some from having been practicing this for 4 years and still lacking clarification on certain things. IMO Yogani would serve his audience better if he were to openly tell how he came to use and know that the IAM mantra is all he says it is, his experiments, failures.

 

It is one of the main subjects there over and over and over and so many people have problems and questions even after practicing for years, resulting in headaches, so called overload and confusion. There is never a direct answer about the IAM mantra, it's always (keep practicing) and you will know that which we speak of here.

 

Edited December 27, 2011 by jijaji

[dwai]

Absolutely! Awareness is what kindles the power of the mantra. I always tell my students - you should both recite and listen to the mantra at the same time, to drive home this point. Mantra recitation is neither a passive practice nor something intended to drive one into a trance by repeated mechanical activity (like TM or DM). A great siddha of yore said, "what is the use of a mantra that is recited without a heart full of love and a mind bright with awareness?"

 

AYP forum has always been touchy about questioning or criticism. For me, it is a path that lacks soul or heart, has the skeletal structure, but no soul.

 

Usually the case with U-turned, hybrid systems that try and remove the tradition part from the practice. However, there are valid points made in the excerpts that TI has posted. It is a good idea to stick to one system or a couple of complementary systems as long as the core philosophical framework of these are compatible (eg: Yoga and Taoist meditation/Taiji Chuan).

 

And I totally disagree with the incompatibility between Yoga and Intellect comment. The whole purpose of Yoga is to turn the consciousness/body complex into a laboratory where the yoga practitioner is the subject and the researcher both, simultaneously. It is very essential to have an intellectual component to the practice otherwise it becomes dumb calisthenics. The lessons learned in a spiritual realm in Yoga are also applicable in the relative realm of civil life (at work, at home). Yoga should never stop and every instance should become a living embodiment of the Yoga practice.

 

imho, it is not possible to properly enter dhyana before the intellectual turmoil created by stillness is not resolved. Samadhi is out of the question in such a case.