On Nov 22, 2005, at 2:56 AM, cardemaister wrote:

--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



To truly understand what this means, you should get an authentic  

teacher to explain the rather detailed commentary of the secrets in  

this passage contained in the yoga-siddhanta-chandrika. The comments  

on this sutra also reveal why the correct route around the siddhis 


is  


contained in this sutra.



FWIW, the results of praaNaayaama or perhaps specifically "caturtha" 

according to Patañjali are as follows:


52. tataH kSiiyate prakaashaavaraNam 

Taimni's translation : From that is dissolved

the covering of light.

BTW, the second part of the suutra following

YF (III 40-something) is a paraphrase of II 52:

...tataH prakaashaavaraNa-kSayaH.

It's the "same" sentence as the nominal (without a finite verb form)

 one II 52(finite verb forms, above "kSiiyate", are very rare in YS,

perhaps in many other suutras, too). 

The second result:

53. dhaaraNaasu ca yogyataa manasaH.

IMO, the conjunction "ca" (and) implies

the adverb "tataH" (from that) from 52. Translation:

And [from  caturthaH?] the fitness of the mind

for concentration [dhaaraNaa, which of course

is the first "component" of saMyama].

I'm not sure what you mean by "route around the siddhis",


Patanjali or any sutra, requires a commentary from someone who knows how the system is actually used. In the oral tradition of Patanjali it is well known the siddhis and samyama formulae are not to be played with. The crux of this is that if one applies the YS correctly, one attains the fourth pranayama and the siddhis come and go spontaneously--thus avoiding getting trapped in yogic flying and other obstacles. If one perfects the fourth pranayama, one also can perfect nirodah. As the mind gets more and more subtle as the breath gets more and more subtle, these expansions are just there.

but at least Patañjali doesn't seem to think like that

if you mean by it what I think you mean.

You should read Taimni's comment on II 52 where he explains

his view why "tataH kSiiyate prakaashaavaraNam" obviously

does not refer to the same "light" (prakaasha) as "...tataH 

prakaashaavaraNa (prakaasha + aavaraNa)-kSayaH." (The forms

"aavaraNa" and "aavaraNam" are not different from each

other semantically. In compounds words, save the last one,

are used in the stem form without the indicators of gender

and inflectional paradigms, and stuff.)






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to