I read your link. I agree with you entirely. Trevor Leggett did the yogic world
a great service by translating this commentary. I spoke with a Sankya-Yoga
scholar a few years back about this text. He had some issues with Leggett's
translation at times but agreed with the overall clarity of the presentation.
This scholar is a long time meditator, tm teacher, former miu prof and longtime
student of ssrs. I saw him recently in ssrs's hotel suite while he brought some
of his students (part of his local university kriya group) in for darshan. He
had an interesting critique of Ian Whicher's "The Integrity of the Yoga
Darshana". I even found out that Gregory Shaw was his roommate at UCal-Santa
Barbara. (You may not be in to this stuff but Shaw is one of the top
commentators on the Neoplatonic Theurgy of Iamblichus, 2nd-3rd A.D. This is the
origin of the short-lived tantra of the western world, a profound tradition
assassinated by the christians.)
You might also know this, but there is now another translation of Shankara's
vivarana on the YS translated by T.S. Rukmani. I purchased it throught Amazon,
as a two volume hardback for $65. She is a well accomplished scholar and used
her previous translation of Patanjali (done with Vacaspati's commentary) as the
YS basis for the Vivarana. She then dropped in Shankara's vivarana text as the
main part of the book. She believes that the vivarana is the work of one of the
yogic Shankaracharya-s from one of the traditional math-s. She cites what she
believes are stylistic reasons for this assignment. She is an academic and is
paid handsomely to generate such informed opinions so we should take her
opinion just for what it is. In either case, whether Adi-Shankara or a later
Shankaracharya, the vivarana is a uniquely fertile contemplative source for the
yogic student - ie. for people who want to move deeper into the knowledge base.
One thing I like about Leggett's version is the staightforward clarity of the
translation which just lends itself to easy comprehension of Shankara's
analysis. I found that by studying Shankara's commentary on the sutras dealing
with dharana (YS 3.1) and dhyana (YS 3.2) , I was able to validate the accuracy
of MMY's teaching about the yogic process of sanyama. He is indeed teaching
Patanjali's sanyama, and not Vajra-naughts some-a-yo-mama. Half-baked sadhaka-s
with god-like pompous egos should rest their attention in the ground luminosity
and then just shut-the-fuck-up. After a while their hearts might softten just
enough so they can care more about what is truth and a whole lot less about
themselves and how they appear to other people.
As a side note here, my interest in this forum is simply to assay the state
of mind of some of fairfield's own meditators. I don't know if this forum is
representative or not, since I only know a few people now living in fairfield.
For my part, I am a non-recertified tm-governor (Fiuggi, 1972), and student of
ssrs - an extraordinary person who has stayed with me at my house and from whom
I have received guru-mantra (rather than sahaj mantra). However, I am also a
student of a Kagyupa Lama who is an adept of mahamudra and dzogchen. He is both
a Kagyupa Khenpo and a Geshe (from Ganden monastery). He will be staying at my
house at the end of this month for a 5-day retreat on practicing the three
views of emptiness, tantra and dzogchen-kadag in daily life. Both of these
gurus have given me profoundly deep teachings although in quite different ways.
In this matter I have been most fortunate.
Also, and perhaps in the interest of disclosure, I should add that I spent
three years in a russian orthodox monastery, a tradition incredibly rich in
yogic-like spiritual teachings. It was there that I learned some important
yogic techniques - how to pray standing up, how to bow, how to sing and chant
in four part harmony and how to drink iced zubravka vodka as a challege sport.
- Not necessarily in that order I might add.
By the way, too bad we couldn't look deeper into the issue of advaita and
madhyamaka. John Arapura, McMaster University has replicated Heidegger's quest
for the origins of metaphysical recognition by examining the foundations of
Vedanta and Madhyamaka. It is a facinating inquiry into the difference between
logos (Vac) as the self-revealing shruti of Brahman and dialectics as the
analysis of the world from the midst of its own flux (santana).
Anyway, so much ... for so much thinking. Thank you for your reply to my
post.
May the dogs wail, and may the moon hum.
woof woof arf arf
empty
"Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Billy-Jim wrote:
> Have you read Shankara's vivarana on Patanjali's
> sutras dealing with Ishvara?
>
Bill - You are wasting your time here. From what I
can tell, not a single informant on this forum has
even heard of Shankara's vivarana on Patanjali's Yoga
Sutras. Years ago on Usenet, I tried to strike up a
dialog on this subject, to no avail. This is not
surprising, considering that the most informed
respondents here can't even tell the difference
between Shankara's Vedanta and Nagarjuna's Madyamaka.
Judy Stein and Michael Dean Goodman proved, using
Nagarjuna's Four Negations, that Brahmna was devoid
of Being. Can you believe that?
Read more:
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
From: willytex
Date: 9 Dec 2004 10:31:10
Subject: Shankara on Yoga Sutras
http://tinyurl.com/29qv6g
"Shankara on the Yoga Sutras"
The Vivarana sub-commentary to Vyasa-bhasya on the
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
Translated by Trevor Leggett
Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
