--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Vaj" <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > "They" seem to translate "saMyamaat" in 3.44 to 'sameness'. > > > That sucks! :D > > > > Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is seen > > in a yoga-darshana text (the > > Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e. the > > shiva-sutras of Vasagupta). > > > > If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not > > qualified to comment. :-) > > Perhaps. The translation is so "commentary-ish" that it's a bit > hard to evaluate it. > > OTOH, I like the translation of 1.18: > > lokaanandaH (loka+aanandaH) samaadhisukham > > The joy of his mystical trance (samaadhi) is bliss for > the whole universe. > > ------------------- > > That seems to support the idea of Maharishi-effect: > someone being in samaadhi (e.g. during YF) radiates > happiness into the whole universe?
Card, I am not a Sanskrit nerd the way you and Vaj are, nor am I ever likely to be. But I cannot help but be struck by the fact that you "like" the translation of 1:18 above because 1) it reaffirms in your mind that Maharishi was "right," and 2) it reaffirms the self-centric, I-am-important- to-the-universe-and-can-change-its-very-nature- by-simply-changing-my-own-subjective-state-of- attention stance that Maharishi promoted. > IMO, in Sanskrit, as I believe in English and many other > languages, the preferred position of the subject in a > sentence is before the predicative, or whatever that sentence > constituent is called in English. For the above translation > IMO one has to take "samaadhi-sukham" to be the subject, and > "lokaanandaH" to be the predicative, as if the word order > would be: > > samaadhisukhaM lokaanandaH But it isn't. Therefore, isn't it more likely that the original placement of the words connotes some- thing more along the lines of, "The bliss of the whole universe is *interpreted* by him as the joy of his mystical trance (samaadhi)?" This is just playing with words for me, but it also reflects my beliefs that the writers of these words didn't necessarily know much more than we do, and that if there really is any truth to be found in them (let alone Truth), that truth probably does not revolve around the seeker's own sense of self importance and his value to the universe. Time and the reactions of others to the TM-centric claim that *we* (the butt-bouncers) and *we* alone are responsible for everything of a positive nature that happens in this world should have produced a realization in those who promote that idea that it's an idea based in ego. Wouldn't a more evolved stance be more along the lines of, "I don't know whether this silly thing I do every day benefits the universe or not, but I gain some subjective benefits from it and thus can hope that my (hopefully) improved state of mind can be of benefit to others." There is some humility in the latter stance. There is none is declaring, essentially, that "I am respon- sible for the bliss of the whole universe." "Words are clothes that thoughts wear." - Samuel Butler
