Patanjali's Sutras and Samyama questions

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi Link

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.

You know, I believe that there are correct techniques and incorrect techniques. There are sincere spiritual people and shams, con artists and teachers who are simply ignorant. All paths do not lead to the same place. There are detours. There are dualities and they have their purpose. There is heaven and hell. Both are essential to maintain each other's existence. I've seen demons and angels. Have you?

 

We do not increase obstacles by labeling right/wrong. These are constructs of the mind and the mind is stilled or bypassed during correct practices or times of devotion. You do not reach enlightenment through the mind, you reach it by turning away from the mind, by seeking the source which isn't in the mind. If you don't feed the mind, it eventually becomes quiet. It does not matter if the intellect is highly tuned and extremely intelligent and capable of labeling everthing. That is not an obstacle. It is an obstacle if that is what you believe, if you are looking for enlightenment in thoughts or the mind.

 

When someone experiences samadhi, the higher samadhis, the mind is incapable of functioning. It can't even think. So how is the content of the mind going to be an obstacle at that time? The obstacle is when someone tells you incorrect techniques to reach samadhi. That's what this is all about.

 

You are propagating myths and you seem to be self-justified. Again, prove it to me that you are just not parroting someone else's teachings. Prove to me by recounting some of your experiences that you are in fact at the top of the mountain looking down, as you seem to be professing by your statements..

 

We do not increase the obstacles to enlightenment through knowledge, true knowledge. That is your belief. True knowledge is enlightenment. Self Realization is knowledge. One must experience it, but to realize is to know.

Divisive actions, if they support the search for clarity, truth and proper practice are not divisive actions but necessary surgery in order to eradicate the disease.

 

As Bhudda said:

Reasoning is harmful

To fools;

It ruins their good fortune

And splits open their heads.

 

Dhammapada, 72

 

 

Don't worry, bhakti will bring you home.

You seem to have judged me and where I am at, that I am not home and not capable of getting there. Now how would you know?

 

If the purusha is the atman, and it is brilliant white light, the Self, and someone tells you to ignore the light because it is just scenery, are they doing you a service or an injustice?

 

TI

[jijaji]

Of course Mantras should not be charged for...

 

is is total silliness only westerners would fall for

 

[jijaji]

Don't worry, bhakti will bring you home

 

Do you mean real Bhakti or "Desire for Liberation"

 

[link]

Who do you believe?

...what do you believe?

 

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

It is an obstacle if that is what you believe,...

You know, I believe...

 

[link]

Do you mean real Bhakti or "Desire for Liberation"

 

 

Real Bhakti.

[jijaji]

Real Bhakti.

 

Ok if that is a joke to you, no worries.

 

I'll put it like this,

 

Do you mean desire for Moksha or Bhakti as referred to in Bhakti Shastra like Narada Pancaratra, Shiva Purana or how it is elucidated in Adi-Shankaras Advaita Vedanta?

 

 

cheers

 

Edited December 18, 2011 by jijaji

[Jeff]

To all:

 

Thanks for the discussion. I have enjoyed the thread.

 

[link]

Do you mean desire for Moksha or Bhakti as referred to in Bhakti Shastra like Narada Pancaratra, Shiva Purana or how it is elucidated in Adi-Shankaras Advaita Vedanta?

 

Devotion

[jijaji]

Devotion

 

Can you possibly expand on that definition...?

 

[link]

I prefer this:

 

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=25&Itemid=2&limitstart=2]

Bhakti Yoga, the path of devotion, consists of surrender to the Divine within the heart. The Maharshi advised this as the most important yoga path after Self-inquiry and usually recommended it along with it. Surrender can be done in four ways.

 

To the Supreme Self (Atma-Bhakti)

To God or the Cosmic Lord as a formless being (Ishvara-Bhakti)

To God in the form of various Gods or Goddesses (Ishta Devata-Bhakti)

To God in the form of the Guru (Guru-Bhakti)

 

The formless approaches of Bhakti are not necessarily better because Bhakti generally depends upon or starts with a form. As our basic attachment is to form, to direct our feeling to a Divine form can reverse this process making us attached to God as the source of our being. Such a personally chosen deity is called an Ishta-Devata.

[jijaji]

http://www.vedanet.c...2&limitstart=2]

Bhakti Yoga, the path of devotion, consists of surrender to the Divine within the heart. The Maharshi advised this as the most important yoga path after Self-inquiry and usually recommended it along with it. Surrender can be done in four ways.

 

To the Supreme Self (Atma-Bhakti)

To God or the Cosmic Lord as a formless being (Ishvara-Bhakti)

To God in the form of various Gods or Goddesses (Ishta Devata-Bhakti)

To God in the form of the Guru (Guru-Bhakti)

 

The formless approaches of Bhakti are not necessarily better because Bhakti generally depends upon or starts with a form. As our basic attachment is to form, to direct our feeling to a Divine form can reverse this process making us attached to God as the source of our being. Such a personally chosen deity is called an Ishta-Devata.

 

I agree with David Frawley on this, thank you.

 

[jijaji]

This may be of interest to you T.I. for your analysis of TM

 

The Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century

 

by Vidyasankar Sundaresan of advaita-vedanta.org

 

http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/shank-jyot-ascii/

 

 

Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati

Edited December 20, 2011 by jijaji

[jijaji]

http://www.vedanet.c...2&limitstart=2]

Bhakti Yoga, the path of devotion, consists of surrender to the Divine within the heart. The Maharshi advised this as the most important yoga path after Self-inquiry and usually recommended it along with it. Surrender can be done in four ways.

 

To the Supreme Self (Atma-Bhakti)

To God or the Cosmic Lord as a formless being (Ishvara-Bhakti)

To God in the form of various Gods or Goddesses (Ishta Devata-Bhakti)

To God in the form of the Guru (Guru-Bhakti)

 

The formless approaches of Bhakti are not necessarily better because Bhakti generally depends upon or starts with a form. As our basic attachment is to form, to direct our feeling to a Divine form can reverse this process making us attached to God as the source of our being. Such a personally chosen deity is called an Ishta-Devata.

 

Link - This being from Dr David Frawley, I wanted to ask you, does this coincide with AYP definition of Bhakti?

 

 

cheers

[jijaji]

I do have to point out also, even though I agree with Dr. Frawley's brief explanation here is just that, very general and "BRIEF".

 

But that cool

[jijaji]

More wisdom from Dr Frawley, thank you Link for bringing him and Ramana Maharishi up, I know it is a tad off topic, but worthy of your time I assure you. Below is excerpted from the large article - link below

 

Misconceptions About Advaita

By David Frawley

First published in the Mountain Path of the Sri Ramanashram

 

Neo-Advaita and Ramana Maharshi

 

The teachings of Ramana Maharshi are often the starting point for neo-Advaitic teachers, though other influences also exist in the movement. However, instead of looking into the background and full scope of Ramana’s teachings, there is often only a focus only on those of his teachings that seem to promise quick realization for all.

 

Some neo-Advaitins even refer to Ramana’s teachings as if Ramana was a rebel or outside of any tradition, almost as if he invented Advaita himself. While Ramana based his teaching on his own direct realization, he frequently quoted from and recommended the reading of Advaitic texts, which he found represented the same teachings as those that arose from his own experience. This included not only the works of Shankara, the main traditional Advaitic teacher, but many other texts like Yoga Vasishta, Tripura Rahasya and Advaita Bodha Dipika.

 

Ramana did broaden out the traditional Advaitic path from its medieval monastic Hindu forms. Yet even in this regard he was continuing a reformation since Vivekananda who created a practical Vedanta or practical Advaita and taught it to all sincere seekers, not just to monastics.

 

Many students come to neo-Advaitic teachers because of Ramana’s influence, looking for another Ramana or for instruction into Ramana’s teaching, but apart from Ramana’s image used by the teacher, what they get may be something different. That someone may use the image of Ramana or quote from him, therefore, is no guarantee that their teaching is really the same.

 

Are There Prerequisites for Advaita?

 

One of the main areas of difference of opinion is relative to who can practice Advaita and to what degree? What are the prerequisites for Self-inquiry? Some people believe that Advaita has no prerequisites, but can be taken up by anyone, under any circumstances, regardless of their background or life-style. After all, Advaita is just teaching us to rest in our true nature, which is always there for everyone. Why should that rest on any outer aids or requirements? This is a particularly appealing idea in the age of democracy, when all people are supposed to be equal.

 

In much of neo-Advaita, the idea of prerequisites on the part of the student or the teacher is not discussed. Speaking to general audiences in the West, some neo-Advaitic teachers give the impression that one can practice Advaita along with an affluent life-style and little modification of one’s personal behavior. This is part of the trend of modern yogic teachings in the West that avoid any reference to asceticism or tapas as part of practice, which are not popular ideas in this materialistic age.

 

However, if we read traditional Advaitic texts, we get quite a different impression. The question of the aptitude or adhikara of the student is an important topic dealt with at the beginning of the teaching. The requirements can be quite stringent and daunting, if not downright discouraging. One should first renounce the world, practice brahmacharya, and gain proficiency in other yogas like Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga and so on (the sadhana-chatushtya). One can examine texts like the Vedanta Sara I.6-26 for a detailed description. While probably no one ever had all of these requirements before starting the practice of Self-inquiry, these at least do encourage humility, not only on the part of the student, but also on the part of the teacher who himself may not have all these requirements!

 

Ramana keeps the requirement for Advaita simple yet clear – a ripe mind, which is the essence of the whole thing, and encourages practice of the teaching without overestimating one’s readiness for it. Yet a ripe mind is not as easy as it sounds either.

 

Ramana defines this ripe mind as profound detachment and deep discrimination, above all a powerful aspiration for liberation from the body and the cycle of rebirth – not a mere mental interest but an unshakeable conviction going to the very root of our thoughts and feelings (note Ramana Gita VII. 8-11).

 

A ripe, pure or sattvic mind implies that rajas and tamas, the qualities of passion and ignorance, have been cleared not only from the mind but also from the body, to which the mind is connected in Vedic thought. Such a pure or ripe mind was rare even in classical India. In the modern world, in which our life-style and culture is dominated by rajas and tamas, it is indeed quite rare and certainly not to be expected.

 

To arrive at it, a dharmic life-style is necessary. This is similar to the Yoga Sutra prescription of the yamas and niyamas as prerequisites for Yoga practice. In this regard, Ramana particularly emphasized a sattvic vegetarian diet as a great aid to practice.

 

The problem is that many people take Ramana’s idea of a ripe mind superficially. It is not a prescription that anyone can approach or practice Advaita in any manner they like. Advaita does require considerable inner purity and self-discipline, developing which is an important aim of practice which should not be lightly set aside.

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38%3Aor-the-non-dual-path&catid=12%3Aadvaita-vedanta-and-ramana-maharshi&showall=1

Edited December 19, 2011 by jijaji

[jijaji]

sorry for double posting

Edited December 19, 2011 by jijaji

[link]

Link - This being from Dr David Frawley, I wanted to ask you, does this coincide with AYP definition of Bhakti?

From what I've seen it is consistent. You might check out the AYP book "Bhakti & Karma Yoga - The Science of Devotion and

Liberation Through Action" http://www.aypsite.org/books.html#bky'>http://www.aypsite.org/books.html#bky .That would probably be the most complete resource on Bhakti in AYP. Also, there is a lot of material at http://www.aypsite.org .

Edited December 20, 2011 by link

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

 

Hi Link

Now Adyashanti is teaching Buddhism! Gee I hope he gets that straight and eventually mentions all of the ingredients. What I've found about Adyashanti is that if you listen to him long enough, eventually he says something that is totally confusing and contradicts what he said previously. I quit studying Adyashanti when he said that "eventually all practices don't work anymore".

 

Yes, ignorance is a form of misperception, but there is a lot more to liberation or freedom from suffering than just a shift of perception. For a more accurate rendition of the end of suffering, try reading the four noble truths. Ignorance or misperception as mentioned by Adyashanti is just a small part of it.

 

See the Four Noble Truths:

link: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

1. Life means suffering.

 

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

 

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

 

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

 

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

 

Futher, I fail to see what Adyashanti said as any form of refutation of my statements concerning belief.. Duh..

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

More wisdom from Dr Frawley, thank you Link for bringing him and Ramana Maharishi up, I know it is a tad off topic, but worthy of your time I assure you. Below is excerpted from the large article - link below

Hi Jijaji

While I appreciate the information you have presented concerning the lineage of the Maharashi and the TM movement, I do think that this is straying from the topic. I am familiar with Ramana, especially the writings of David Godman. link: http://davidgodman.org/

There are a few things I found disheartening about Ramana's experience and teachings:

1) He was spontaneously enlightened, so one cannot attribute his state to a specific set of practices.

2) His definition of the Heart is ambiguous, one would conclude that his "heart" is really the atman, but it could be the heart on the right side of the chest.

3) Simply asking the question "Who AM I" needs to be converted to a practice that can be sustained.

I would suggest an exercise such as this:

- sit in a meditative posture, remain clear and alert

- notice a thought.

- turn your attention 180 degrees backwards and focus on who or what is perceiving the thought

- another thought appears, repeat the 180 degree turn.

- a vision appears, do the same.

- keep turning your attention back to who or what is perceiving.

- try to remain as the perceiver. It will take you to the "Who am I".

 

 

However, this was is a thread about AYP's deceptions with regards to Patanjali's Yoga Sutras..

 

Thanks.

TI

Edited December 20, 2011 by Tibetan_Ice

[jijaji]

Sorry I got off topic, briefly I agree with most you say in regards to Ramana, add to that he did not belong to the orthodox Advaita tradition itself. So as Dr, Frawley said many end their understanding for Advaita with Ramana and dont go further to the actual tradition itself.

 

cheers

Edited December 20, 2011 by jijaji

[jijaji]

good luck

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by jijaji

[Tibetan_Ice]

[jijaji]

I have to agree what I hear being considered as Bhakti in AYP is not in accordance with any School of Bhakti I know of, be it Vaishnava, Shaiva or even Bhakti in Advaita Vedanta.

 

I read this from an AYP lesson today which I found strange:

 

Q: I have been doing meditation for quite some time now and had a lot of spinal breathing exercises. Since four years ago I have been in taoist sexual practices and I can now elevate sexual energies to the crown. Although I have been faithful to my wife as she had been my partner, she is quite slow in practicing and I found myself doing most of the practices all alone. However I have other women in mind in doing the practices on my own. Is this harmful to my wellbeing? Second, are the women that I am fantasizing on affected by my visualizations and emotional energy? Please enlighten me on this matter.

 

 

A: Fantasies for solo practice are fine. If we use them to go higher, it is a form of bhakti, yes? As ecstatic conductivity gradually comes up, the fantasies will transform to a higher expression of ecstatic bliss and divine love bubbling from within. Then the process will be self-sustaining, and there will be little need to fantasize on external persons or objects.

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by jijaji

[jijaji]

Bhakti consists of sravanam, kirtanam, visnoh (or istha devata) smaranam, pada-sevanam, arcanam, vandanam and dasyam.

 

These are only the beginning stages known as Vaidhi Bhakti, as one further advances depending on attachment, love and eligibility one moves onto Raganuga Bhakti or Prema Bhakti (Pure Love).

 

Bhakti is NOT desire for Moksha, or visualizing some babe while your doing solo tantra (another subject LOL)

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by jijaji

[xabir2005]

Hi Jijaji

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

Patanjali's framework and philosophy is Sankhya.

 

Sankhya is a dualist school: it teaches that there are two components in reality, one is Spirit (Purusa), one is Matter (Prakriti).

 

Spirit is pure consciousness, the witness, your true self. It teaches that Spirit and matter are two different things - cannot be mixed, like water and oil does not mix together.

 

Advaita is a non-dual school - it teaches Consciousness is the One without Second. There is no split between spirit and matter because everything is Brahman alone. It says, "The world is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the world" - and the third step is what differentiates Advaita from Sankhya.

 

Imo you can use Sankhya framework and the Patanjali teachings to realize/experience the I AM, then later with some Advaita teachings you may collapse any Subject/Object dichotomy into Oneness. It could be a stepping stone, so not implying that the I AM is any less valuable or important, plus non-dual realization does not deny the I AM experience but just transforms the view.

 

This guy (a Yoga teacher with personal insight and experience of what he's talking about) explains a little about this in his interview:

(Richard C Miller Speaks Yoga Nidra and iRest)

 

 

Anyway if you want to get some ideas about the difference between I AM and Non-Dual, read this article, at least the top one: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

Edited December 20, 2011 by xabir2005