Hi Bill: I'm not sure what to make of your infrequent posts here to FFL, so often filled with bile and now, misinformation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. Of course this may be how it appears to someone who learned from a book. The reality however is quite different. For example I can tell you Vajranaths master in the yoga sutras come from a long oral lineage. The cave they were initated in records the oral tradition of that line for over 700 years! And thats just in this one place. > > 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. Ah, more misinformation. First of all, Swami Hariharananda Aranya did not TRY to revive the lineage (from extant oral traditions), he did so. That was not in the 19th century but the 20th century. And not only DID that survive, it is now in its fourth generation and thriving. Wow, you got every point wrong Bill. Impressive! The Patanjali tradition is an ancient oral tradition which continues up to the present day, but it is very rare. Often it seems traditions have become extinct when in fact they submerge and reemerge, often beyond the eyes of the scholars and the masses. > > 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. But of course the initial point was cultivation of siddhis is opposite of vairagya so therefore the inital point remains, as the oral tradition tells us. Kala Devi
