--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is > the > > > > > > > opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya > tradition and > > > > > > > numerous others. > > > > > > > > > > > > But not necessarily according to Patanjali. > > > > > > > > > > And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, > reformator of > > > > > Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya > describes > > > > > Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only > described in > > > > > PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against > samyama > > > > > being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from > someone who > > > > > doesn't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that is the case then "someone who doesn't know" would be > > > Shankaracharya Vidyaranya > > > > and the many others he quotes! > > > > > > > > Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with > > > using this triad to > > > > cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! > > > > > > > > How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? > > > You don't seem to > > > > be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! > > > > > > If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully > > > vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making > > > references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word > > > occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. > > > There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to > > > Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your > > > sources. > > > > > > > You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain > such things to you as > > you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, > what a crazy thing to > > ask. > > I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' > stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. > > > > Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing > those absorptions on > > the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). > They are not used in > > the advaita tradition of Shankara. > > You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required > reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e > PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas > Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able > to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or > Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your > secrets to yourselves. > > > If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned > about that teachers > > worthiness to teach. > > See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't > listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I > know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational > arguments and we can talk. > > > IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against > cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try > > to find a quote if I can). > > Good, try. > > > Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts > without guidance, > > only an agenda. > > Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? > > > The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect > > dangerous practices you are attached to. > > The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, > and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. > Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use > personalattack otherwise? >
I'm not attacking you t3inity, it just is rather obvious to me what your quote is referring to: the triad of absorptions (a very valuable practice indeed) but it does not refer to their use for siddhis. If I am missing something or you have a quote from Madhusadana which *does* mention using samyama on the siddhi formulae and practices, then please post it. Your confusing the plain practice of samyama, the triad of the three yogic absorptions, with the practice of samyama ON siddhi formulae (and associated practices). There is a difference, but it's for me to apologize for your ignorance of this fact? No, it's for me to point out this fact, not as any sort of fundamentalist, certainly, but from what my knowledge of what the teachings are. Samyama in the yoga sutra refers to a particular practice: dharana, dhyana and samadhi. That term of and by itself does not specify what object that samyama is being performed "on". Since the prohibition on samyama *on siddhi formulae* is universal, if indeed he is recommending samyama it could not be on siddhis but merely as the practice itself, which is a practice known to obliterate karma (not create it and obscurations).
