Hi Trinity, Welcome back to krodha-dama.
We get to hear claims here from time to time about lineages - along with various references to yogic insider knowledge. Most of it is nothing but mere claims, usually based upon a favored explanation given by some teacher who is rooted in a particular interpretation or philosophic view about yoga. Here, in this context, it appears quite funny - so we should all have a good laugh, pass the bottle of bourbon and salute our foolish imaginations. The PatanjalaYogaSutra is clocked around 150-200 CE. Both the Samkhya and Yoga darshanas were dealt with by Buddhist scholars, even as late as Paramatha in China (6th Cent. CE). That is pretty much it because neither of these darshanas survived the intervening centuries down to our era of time. "Did not survive" means no param-para, no sampradaya, no lineage, no diksha, no transmission of secret techniques, no transmission of hidden knowledge, and more importantly no person remaining to retain any kind of lengthy or abridged explanations. Swami Hariharananda Aranya tried to revive this extinct lineage in the 19th Century, CE by creating a SankhyaYoga Matha but it did not survive either. Vedanta survived - in various forms and sampradayas. Vedantic teachers read Patanjali and created their own interpretations of his intended meaning, although almost always defering to and starting from Vyasa's commentary. And Trinity you are quite correct. I posted Shankara's short vivarana about siddhis in Card's thread about YS. III.37(38). He sees siddhis as distractions but only for a yogin who wants to remain absorbed in the vision of purusha. Even then there is no problem for one detached in proper vairagya. empty --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: > > > >> > IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant > to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. > The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. > So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to > > samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context.
