--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:00 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > > > > > Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) > > > > the "Yogi" suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly > > > > accorded a Hatha Yogi? > > > > > > Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga- darshana > > > (which includes hatha-yoga). > > > > > > > Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi > > > > although no account I've read says anything about > > > > whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. > > > > > > When I say "yogi" I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha- > > > yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. > > > > However, oddly enough, that's exactly what you > > did in the post Marek is responding to. No wonder > > you snipped it from your reply: > > > > "The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually > > one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. > > > > "I would think common sense could also make this clear. > > If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a > > brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp > > intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead > > they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed > > the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the > > booklets (which now circulate in PDF form)." > > No, once again you're missing the point through over- > specification of language.
No, once again you're backpedaling from your own over-specific language. In response to Marek's objection to what I just quoted, you claimed you "rarely" used "yogi" to refer to a hatha yogi, but that's what you had just done in the post Marek was responding to, and that was the very basis of his objection. > An expert in yoga-darshana would almost certainly know the > asanas since they parallel the inner practices (of yoga- > darshana). In other words the outer asanas are a subset of > the overall practices of yoga-darshana. Therefore it would > be highly unusual for someone making a claim of being a > yogi to not know them and have to rely on a gym teacher. And we have your word for it that the asana sheets handed out for rounding were entirely the work of this gym teacher with no input whatsoever from MMY, and that on this basis alone we should all agree-- nay, are "forced to conclude"--that MMY doesn't qualify to add "Yogi" to his name. Uh-huh. I'm sure convinced, especially given your impeccable accounting of other aspects of MMY's activities (such as your claim, for example, that MMY forced Hagelin to go on tour preaching to physicists that consciousnessness is the Unified Field when Hagelin himself, according to you, didn't believe it). As you know (or should, having been a TM teacher), the asana sheets were never intended to be anything remotely like a "course" in hatha yoga, nor did they require any deep knowledge of it. In other words, it was something a gym teacher with some knowledge of very basic, simple yoga asanas *could* put together on his own and make the drawings for, with perhaps some guidance from MMY. As you should also know, some years ago MMY *did* institute an actual course in hatha yoga, which, from everything I've heard about it, was focused directly on the inner-outer connection. > One is forced to conclude ROTFL! that the Shankaracharya who stated > that Mahesh was not a yogi was speaking the truth (if one is logical, > objective and has some familiarity with the tradition). > > If you aren't familiar with the tradition, it's easier to pull the > wool over your eyes. >
