Yep drP. Ain't it so. And MMY talked about this in the old days - late 60's and
early 70's.
It is this "different context" which is the difference between a renunciate's
life and a householder's life. It is the difference between walking away from
social responsibility to focus on individual development versus balancing those
two values in a single human life.
Patanjali's text was codified within the renunciate's tradition. Ahimsa
(non-harming), as a formal requirement, reflects this definition. This is why
the idea that householders can't get enlightened is so fixed in the hindu and
buddhist lineages. In India, if you are not a sannyasin then no one will listen
to you - except ignorant westerners and a few women. At least in the past. Now
of course you have a chance to turn the whole thing into a type of business,
based in part upon the TMO model combined with slavish forms of guru worship.
Based upon Patanjali's path, no martial artist, police officer, military
officer or sexually active man or woman will ever, nor can ever be an
enlightened person. This is also the authorized conclusion of the Theravada
Buddhists. In fact, according to them, if you return to a householder's life
after realizing the Arhat stage then this proves that you are not an Arhat. The
only exception to this for Patanjali is if Ishvara grants liberation to one of
his devotees. Ishvara does so only "because he can".
That is why mastery of the Yama and Niyama limbs are not really requirements
for mastery of the inner limbs, or sanyama, but are rather valuable adjuncts.
We have heard Vaj argue the opposite. He is quite capable of speaking for
himself so I'll leave it to him to clarify this, if he so wishes.
Now wasn't that nice of me Vaj? Barry would be proud.
empty
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Krishna's teaching is from and within a different
context than Patanjali.
--- billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Poor Arjuna. He was a warrior and was instructed by
> Lord Krishna to follow his dharma and fight. That
> means he could not follow Patanjali's practice of
> non-harming (ahimsa) without regard to time, place
> or intent. Nor could any of the other warriors for
> that matter. Although many of them practiced intense
> yoga tapas (austerity) to obtain martial arts
> siddhis they really must have only been practicing a
> form of yoga-lite McMeditation.
>
> Don't you just feel sorry for poor Arjuna? He
> killed people in battle. He therefore wasn't
> qualified for yama-niyama nor sannyasa
> (renunciation). He was not qualified for the inner
> limbs used in sanyama - dharana, dhyana, samadhi.
> Too bad - must have had bad karma.
>
> Poor Krishna. He was a warrior and killed people
> too. He wasn't qualified to do sanyama either. To
> bad. He must have had bad karma.
>
> The unqualified teaching the unqualified. What is
> this world coming to?
>
> empty
>
>
> "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MMY took the essential teachings of the
> Sanatana Dharma of India
> (eternal Religion of the Vedas)and made them into a
> science.
>
> In order to do this he had to sever certain parts of
> Patanjali's
> teachings in order to teach it as a Science. Limbs 1
> and 2 are NOT
> being taught by the TMorg, but MMY concedes they are
> necessary in his
> BG and must be practiced simultaneously with the
> other 6. (page 363)
> Limbs 1 and 2 are *Religious* in nature!
>
> The reason he did it was to reach as many as
> possible by tailoring it
> to meet the needs (or mentality) of the day, some
> compromises were
> made, but essentially TM is yoga-lite for modernity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network
> Research Panel today!
__________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
