cardemaister wrote: > etena yogaH *pratyuktaH* (brahmasuutras, II 1.3.) :0 > This is outrageous! You're telling me that Shankara wrote a vivarana on Vyasa's commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? And that the pundits on Usenet and FFL withheld this information from me for nearly 10 years. For what purpose, I wonder? This seems tyo be a pattern with some TMer informants - withholding information.
First, they wouldn't tell me the meaning of the bija mantras, then they refused to tell me where all the money was going, then they tried to hide the fact that Marshy was having relations with his female students. Now I find out that Shankara wrote about the Yoga Sutras and not a single respondent has a thing to say about it. Some pundits they turned out to be. This is the final straw with these punditsters. I can only conclude that they are devious, lying soundrels, and intellectually dishonest. They've confused Middle Way Buddhism with Adwaita Vedanta! There is no Being in God - the Transcendental Person is an illusion, Brahman is a "nothing". And the Marshy is a left-handed, tantric basket weaver. Go figure. > > 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: > > > > The Vivarana sub-commentary to Vyasa-bhasya on the > > Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. > > Translated by Trevor Leggett > > Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983
