--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> > > >
> > > You think G
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> > >
> > You think God
> > > is stupid?
> >
> > Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> You think God
> > is stupid?
>
> Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is
> bliss, you do the math.
Well, to be stupid is good f
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
> > > tradition in his willingness to leave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
You think God
> is stupid?
Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is
bliss, you do the math.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When they came out of that momentarily sleep-like state and felt more
>rested he called it samadhi.
I don't think he ever called it Samadhi!! He has suggested however it
was Pure Consciousness (albeit the same), some d
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After all, Maharishi is a kshatriya and you know those ksatriyas
>can't practice ahimsa and keep their dharma too.
Of course they can, the world of Relativity contains NO absolutes, the
dharma of protecting Righteous
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You must have missed the previous conversations on how
> "effortlessness" is defined in the Patanjali system. If there is
> support (Skt.: Alambana), there is effort.
MMY does not claim that TM does not take effort per-se
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
> > > tradition in his willingness to leave
On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
> tradition in his willingness to leave the yamas
> and niyamas of Patanjali out of his teachings and
> techniques,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given his very different understanding, of course
> MMY would not have taught mastery of the yamas
> and niyamas as a prerequisite to samadhi, even to
> the most religiou
authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given his very different understanding, of course
MMY would not have taught mastery of the yamas
and niyamas as a prerequisite to samadhi, even to
the most religiously devoted Hindu practitioners;
it would have been counterproductive, in his view.
He
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
> tradition in his willingness to leave the yamas
> and niyamas of Patanjali out of his teachings and
> techniques, it was that revolutionary aspect of his
> teaching
Dialogue below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
>
> > In your opinion (and others), that was ultimately a bad decision, but
> > I feel that Maharishi's initial impulse was sincere and came from
> > he
On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:33 PM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
> > yoga.
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
> > yoga.
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what it is: it's
actually
> the sparsest of sketche
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
In your opinion (and others), that was ultimately a bad decision, but
I feel that Maharishi's initial impulse was sincere and came from
heartfelt enthusiasm that what he was doing was following the
inspiration he received from Guru Dev.
I used
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's upside is that it was easily disseminated and easy to do, so
> millions took up the practice--there has to be some positive effect
> from that (even, possibly, if most quit), and for that we should all
> be gratefu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing tradition in his
> willingness to leave the yamas and niyamas of Patanjali out of his
> teachings and techniques, it was that revolutionary aspect of his
> teachin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
This is correct: "It is wrong to assume that unless the senses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ---Thanks, I agree with the assessment (below). In retrospect, MMY
> failed at both the science aspect and the religion/spirituality
> aspect. By siding with the religious/spiritual aspect, fewer people
> may h
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
>
> > This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
> > intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west.
Yoga
> > is so emp
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:30 PM, BillyG. wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I can't see how anyone could take perverting a tradition which works
> as "practical". The mechanics of why the prerequisites work are well
> known to real yogis...and they ke
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga.
Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what it is: it's actually
the sparsest of sketches. In order to actually learn what it's
referring to, one needs to use quite a few other
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I can't see how anyone could take perverting a tradition which works
> as "practical". The mechanics of why the prerequisites work are well
> known to real yogis...and they keep creating real samadhic absorptions.
>
TM is actually deriving its principles from Patanjali and the B.
Gita. IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga. However, the B Gita is revealing the practical aspects or
application of yoga. In effect, yoga essentially is NOT for the
timid. There comes a time when a
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> wrote:
>
>
> > This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
> > intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west.
On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west. Yoga
is so empirical in nature and practice and most religions promulgate
most, if not all, of the elements contained in t
---Thanks, I agree with the assessment (below). In retrospect, MMY
failed at both the science aspect and the religion/spirituality
aspect. By siding with the religious/spiritual aspect, fewer people
may have initially started TM, but we would be left with a core group
of dedicated, spiritually
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
> intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west. Yoga
> is so empirical in nature and practice and most religions promulgate
> most, if
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And of course the bhagavad-gita is just a hodgepodge of stolen goods,
> over half of it's verses come from the parameshvara agama, a Shaivite
> text which pre-dates the Vaishnavite merchant class revival.
And it really do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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)
snip>
That is correct! The law of Dharma i
33 matches
Mail list logo
