--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 19, 2007, at 8:13 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:59 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Empty Bill: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To parrot Vaj: "Any real yogi familiar with Patanjali will be well > > > > aware" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patanjali does not discuss the topic of "effort" in yoga other > > than > > > > to comment as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.46: a steady (sthira) and comfortable (sukha) seat (asana) comes > > > > about from > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.47: the loosening (shaitilya) of endeavour (prayatna) and a > > > > consequent coinciding (samapatti) with the endless (ananta). > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor does he ever use the word "alambana" in the sense of a > > > > "cognitive object" in any of the sutras. > > > > > > This displays a basic misunderstanding of sutra literature in > > general > > > and the prerequisites for yoga-darshana study, a la Patanjali. Keep > > > in mind Billy, a sutra requires a commentary to clarify it's > > purpose, > > > intent and practical application. This would typically mean the > > 20 or > > > so commentaries of the YS. But before these are even approached, one > > > must understand sankhya. In fact one of the titles for the YS is > > > Sankhya-pravachana, "The Enunciation of Sankhya". > > > > > > The prerequisite for understanding of the YS is a thorough > > > comprehension sankhya via the Tattva-samasa-sutras. > > > > > > Once one has this understanding, one will also understand that an > > > alambana will be based on any of the 24 evolutes of matter, the > > > prakritis and the vikritis and that an alambana approaches > > "union" or > > > "yoga" via some method. No matter how easy and simple any of these > > > methods are, they do constitute some type of effort. > > > > > > If one "skipped" the Tattva-samasa-sutras, one may miss this > > > essential understanding. > > > > > > This really has little to do with Buddhist practice, but one can > > find > > > a similar dichotomy between causal vehicles of Buddhism which > > rely on > > > dualistic methods, all using some form of effort and nondual, truly > > > effortless practice. In Hindu systems, truly effortless practice > > > would be found in the Hindu nondual schools, like advaita vedanta or > > > other nondual schools. For a more direct comparison, one could > > > compare the nine-fold division of the Nyingmapa with the ninefold > > > division in the Bengali tantras, as they are roughly parallel. > > > > All meaningless crap without a direct experience of the Absolute. > > > Actually it would still possess meaning with or without a direct > experience of "the absolute". What's important to get is just because > someone tells you something represents the absolute does not mean it > is the "absolute".
I'm not talking about what somebody says *about* the Absolute, I'm talking about the *experience* of the Absolute. Like I said, Vaj, without a direct experience of the Absolute, all of your pseudo scholarly comparative mumbo-jumbo verbiage is meaningless apart from satisfying curiosity but with nothing practical to show for it. If you can't come up with anything more than your pontifications you're wasting everybody's time. But specifically offering something practicable instead of just ignorantly bashing TM isn't your purpose, is it? Your purpose is just to bash TM, a technique that works, without offering anything else better; an empty arrogant exercise in personal hostility. > But the latter is common is diluted and/or > distorted traditions, like the TMO. Your attempt to characterize the TMO has nothing to do with the reality of the actual direct *experience* of the Absolute by countless numbers of TMers via TM. And you haven't a clue what that really is since you've never *experienced* the actual properly instructed practice of TM yourself.
