[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: From Bhojadeva's comment on YS II 15 As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati) great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha) of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s (see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api) a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case with) the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs). It seems to me, vivekin (nom. sing: vivekii) in that suutra (II 15) refers to someone who, in TM lingo, is unstressing. The next suutra goes like this: heyaM duHkham anaagatam (II 16; tr. by Dr. Taimni) The misery (duHkham) which is not yet come (anaagatam) can and is to be avoided (heyam). Suutra II 26 states: viveka-khyaatir aviplavaa haanopayaH (haana+upaayaH). I urge everyone to find their favorite translation of this suutra. IMHO, it might describe, what's in TM lingo called Cosmic Consciousness (turiiyaatiita[turiiya+ati+ita]-cetanaa) Anyhoo, there's that compound word 'viveka-khyaatiH'[sic!] which proves, sort of, that 'vivekin' in II 15 can't refer to a realized individual?? Just for fun, note that the word 'viveka-khyaatiH' (in abl./gen. sing: viveka-khyaateH[sic!]) appears also in IV 29, which introduces dharma-megha-samaadhi, the highest(?) stage of samaadhi: prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa *viveka-khyaater* dharma-meghaH samaadhiH.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: From Bhojadeva's comment on YS II 15 As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati) great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha) of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s (see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api) a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case with) the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs). It seems to me, vivekin (nom. sing: vivekii) in that suutra (II 15) refers to someone who, in TM lingo, is unstressing. The next suutra goes like this: heyaM duHkham anaagatam (II 16; tr. by Dr. Taimni) The misery (duHkham) which is not yet come (anaagatam) can and is to be avoided (heyam). Suutra II 26 states: viveka-khyaatir aviplavaa haanopayaH (haana+upaayaH). I urge everyone to find their favorite translation of this suutra. IMHO, it might describe, what's in TM lingo called Cosmic Consciousness (turiiyaatiita[turiiya+ati+ita]-cetanaa) Anyhoo, there's that compound word 'viveka-khyaatiH'[sic!] which proves, sort of, that 'vivekin' in II 15 can't refer to a realized individual?? Just for fun, note that the word 'viveka-khyaatiH' (in abl./gen. sing: viveka-khyaateH[sic!]) appears also in IV 29, which introduces dharma-megha-samaadhi, the highest(?) stage of samaadhi: prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa *viveka-khyaater* dharma-meghaH samaadhiH. I only know that the meaning of khyaati should be fame - so viveka khyaati could be translated as one famed for their discriminative powers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
Continues like this (in Sanskrit Documents,
Transliterated transcribed from a manuscript by : Dr. Suryanshu Ray
suryansuray@
% Proofread byDr. Suryanshu Ray ):
yasmAdatyantAbhijAto yogI duHkhaleshenApyudvijate.
(yasmaat; atyanta-abhijaataH; yogii duHkha-leshena; api;
udvijate)
That seems to mean something like:
That's why (yasmaat) an/the excessively (atyanta[1]) aware (abhijaataH[2])
yogi is afflicted (udvijate[3]) even (api)
by a very small[4] amount of duHkha.
1. atyanta mfn. beyond the proper end or limit ; excessive , very great ,
very strong ; endless , unbroken , perpetual ; absolute , perfect ;...
2. perfect participle from
abhijJA %{-jAnAti} , %{-nIte} , to recognize , perceive , know , be or
become aware of ; to acknowledge , agree to , own ; to remember (either
with the fut , p. or with %{yad} and impf.) Pa1n2. 2-2 , 112 seqq.
Bhat2t2
3. udvijA1. %{-vijate} (raely %{-vejate} in MBh.) P. %{-vijati}
(rarely) , to gush or spring upwards AV. iv , 15 , 3 ; to be agitated ,
grieved or afflicted ; to shudder , tremble , start ; to fear , be afraid
of (with gen. abl. or instr.) MBh. BhP. Pan5cat. c. ; to shrink from ,
recede , leave off S3atr. Bhat2t2. ; to frighten MBh. ii , ...
4. leza m. a small part or portion , particle , atom , little bit or
slight trace of (gen. or comp. ; %{-tas} and %***{[lesh]ena - what'
in brackets, added by card} , Ind. = very slightly or briefly*** ;
%{les3a-s3as} , in small pieces R.) ...
And then:
yathA \-\-\- (have no idea what those mean)
akShipAtramUrNAtantusparshamAtreNaiva mahatIM pIDAmanubhavati
netaradaN^gaM tathA vivekI svalpaduHkhAnubandhenApyudvijate .
(sandhi vigraha in ITRANS, sort of:
yathaa \-\-\-
akSi-paatram uurNaa-tantu-sparsha-maatreNa; eva mahatiiM piiDaam anubhavati
?na;itara-an.gam?[1], tathaa vivekii svalpa-duHkha-anubandhena api; udvijate .
Let's suppose 'akSi-paatram' means 'eyeball' and 'uurNaa-tantu'
means 'fiber of wool', or stuff. Then the whole sentence could
mean something like:
Akshi Paatram could mean the eye ball or the eye socket since Aksha for eye and
Paatram means vessel.
As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati)
great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha)
of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s
(see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api)
a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case with)
the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs).
1. The original has 'netaradaN^gaM', but we couldn't make any
sense of it, so we assumed there's a typo there, and it should
actually be 'netarAN^gaM' (netara-an.gam na+itara-an.gam)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
From Bhojadeva's comment on YS II 15
As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati)
great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha)
of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s
(see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api)
a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case with)
the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs).
It seems to me, vivekin (nom. sing: vivekii) in that suutra (II 15)
refers to someone who, in TM lingo, is unstressing.
The next suutra goes like this:
heyaM duHkham anaagatam (II 16; tr. by Dr. Taimni)
The misery (duHkham) which is not yet come (anaagatam)
can and is to be avoided (heyam).
Suutra II 26 states:
viveka-khyaatir aviplavaa haanopayaH (haana+upaayaH).
I urge everyone to find their favorite translation of
this suutra.
IMHO, it might describe, what's in TM lingo called Cosmic Consciousness
(turiiyaatiita[turiiya+ati+ita]-cetanaa)
Anyhoo, there's that compound word 'viveka-khyaatiH'[sic!] which
proves, sort of, that 'vivekin' in II 15 can't refer to
a realized individual??
Just for fun, note that the word 'viveka-khyaatiH' (in abl./gen.
sing: viveka-khyaateH[sic!]) appears also in IV 29, which
introduces dharma-megha-samaadhi, the highest(?) stage of
samaadhi:
prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa *viveka-khyaater*
dharma-meghaH samaadhiH.
I only know that the meaning of khyaati should be fame - so viveka khyaati
could be translated as one famed for their discriminative powers.
Is hindi (or some other Indian language
related to Sanskrit) your native language?
If that's the case, it might be a slight disadvantage
in learning Sanskrit. A bit like myself trying to translate
Estonian (which for Finns sounds like funny Finnish; for
Estonians Finnish sounds like old-fashioned Estonian)
without consulting a dictionary.
For instance, in Estonian 'kulli' (hawk's) is the possessive form
of the word 'kull' which means 'hawk'. In Finnish, 'kulli'
is vulgar for penis (cock, dick, etc.)...
khyAti f. ` declaration ' , opinion , view , idea , assertion BhP. xi , 16 ,
24 Sarvad. xv , 201 ; ***perception , knowledge Yogas[uutra]***. Tattvas. (=
%{buddhi}) Sarvad. ; renown , fame , celebrity Mn. xii ,
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
From Bhojadeva's comment on YS II 15
As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati)
great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch
(sparsha)
of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki
udvij-s
(see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even
(api)
a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case
with)
the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs).
It seems to me, vivekin (nom. sing: vivekii) in that suutra (II
15)
refers to someone who, in TM lingo, is unstressing.
The next suutra goes like this:
heyaM duHkham anaagatam (II 16; tr. by Dr. Taimni)
The misery (duHkham) which is not yet come (anaagatam)
can and is to be avoided (heyam).
Suutra II 26 states:
viveka-khyaatir aviplavaa haanopayaH (haana+upaayaH).
I urge everyone to find their favorite translation of
this suutra.
IMHO, it might describe, what's in TM lingo called Cosmic
Consciousness (turiiyaatiita[turiiya+ati+ita]-cetanaa)
Anyhoo, there's that compound word 'viveka-khyaatiH'[sic!] which
proves, sort of, that 'vivekin' in II 15 can't refer to
a realized individual??
Just for fun, note that the word 'viveka-khyaatiH' (in abl./gen.
sing: viveka-khyaateH[sic!]) appears also in IV 29, which
introduces dharma-megha-samaadhi, the highest(?) stage of
samaadhi:
prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa *viveka-khyaater*
dharma-meghaH samaadhiH.
I only know that the meaning of khyaati should be fame - so viveka
khyaati could be translated as one famed for their discriminative
powers.
Is hindi (or some other Indian language
related to Sanskrit) your native language?
Yes Hindi and Telugu.
If that's the case, it might be a slight disadvantage
in learning Sanskrit. A bit like myself trying to translate
No its actually quite an advantage not to mention I did study Sanskrit
in school.
Estonian (which for Finns sounds like funny Finnish; for
Estonians Finnish sounds like old-fashioned Estonian)
without consulting a dictionary.
For instance, in Estonian 'kulli' (hawk's) is the possessive form
of the word 'kull' which means 'hawk'. In Finnish, 'kulli'
is vulgar for penis (cock, dick, etc.)...
This is quite common in Indian languages as well but its not the case
here.
khyAti f. ` declaration ' , opinion , view , idea , assertion BhP.
xi , 16 , 24 Sarvad. xv , 201 ; ***perception , knowledge
Yogas[uutra]***. Tattvas. (= %{buddhi}) Sarvad. ; renown , fame ,
celebrity Mn. xii ,
Khyaati might have different meanings like any other Sanskrit word but
it does mean fame, renowned, reputed among others.
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HKbeginning=0+tinput=%E0%A4%\
96%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BFcountry_ID=trans=Transl\
atedirection=AU
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HKbeginning=0+tinput=%E0%A4\
%96%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BFcountry_ID=trans=Trans\
latedirection=AU
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HKbeginning=0+tinput=%E0%A4\
%96%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BFcountry_ID=trans=Trans\
latedirection=AU How would you translate Viveka Khyaati?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things like
beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get emotional
about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in them, nor ignore
them. But my bias is to not give them much attention.
Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty the
weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make any
judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it either
way.
I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all
experience is pain, (or something to that effect).
This is from Bhoja's comment on that suutra (II 15):
vivekinaH parij~nAtakleshAdivivekasya *bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM
svAdvannam iva duHkham eva* pratikUlavedanIyamevetyarthaH .
Bhoja's Sanskrit is somewhat more tricky than, say,
Vyaasa's. My attempt at a rough translation of
bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM svAdvannam iva duHkham eva
...would be something like this (ITRANS'ish transliteation):
(To a vivekin, all) experience [dunno how to translate 'saadhana'
in 'bhoga-saadhana'] is painful like (iva) sweet food (svaadvannam svaadu +
annam) containing poison (sa-viSam: with-poison).
Continues like this (in Sanskrit Documents,
Transliterated transcribed from a manuscript by : Dr. Suryanshu Ray
suryansu...@yahoo.com
% Proofread byDr. Suryanshu Ray ):
yasmAdatyantAbhijAto yogI duHkhaleshenApyudvijate.
(yasmaat; atyanta-abhijaataH; yogii duHkha-leshena; api;
udvijate)
That seems to mean something like:
That's why (yasmaat) an/the excessively (atyanta[1]) aware (abhijaataH[2]) yogi
is afflicted (udvijate[3]) even (api)
by a very small[4] amount of duHkha.
1. atyanta mfn. beyond the proper end or limit ; excessive , very great ,
very strong ; endless , unbroken , perpetual ; absolute , perfect ;...
2. perfect participle from
abhijJA %{-jAnAti} , %{-nIte} , to recognize , perceive , know , be or become
aware of ; to acknowledge , agree to , own ; to remember (either with the fut ,
p. or with %{yad} and impf.) Pa1n2. 2-2 , 112 seqq. Bhat2t2
3. udvijA1. %{-vijate} (raely %{-vejate} in MBh.) P. %{-vijati}
(rarely) , to gush or spring upwards AV. iv , 15 , 3 ; to be agitated , grieved
or afflicted ; to shudder , tremble , start ; to fear , be afraid of (with gen.
abl. or instr.) MBh. BhP. Pan5cat. c. ; to shrink from , recede , leave off
S3atr. Bhat2t2. ; to frighten MBh. ii , ...
4. leza m. a small part or portion , particle , atom , little bit or slight
trace of (gen. or comp. ; %{-tas} and %***{[lesh]ena - what'
in brackets, added by card} , Ind. = very slightly or briefly*** ;
%{les3a-s3as} , in small pieces R.) ...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
Continues like this (in Sanskrit Documents,
Transliterated transcribed from a manuscript by : Dr. Suryanshu Ray
suryansuray@...
% Proofread byDr. Suryanshu Ray ):
yasmAdatyantAbhijAto yogI duHkhaleshenApyudvijate.
(yasmaat; atyanta-abhijaataH; yogii duHkha-leshena; api;
udvijate)
That seems to mean something like:
That's why (yasmaat) an/the excessively (atyanta[1]) aware (abhijaataH[2])
yogi is afflicted (udvijate[3]) even (api)
by a very small[4] amount of duHkha.
1. atyantamfn. beyond the proper end or limit ; excessive , very great ,
very strong ; endless , unbroken , perpetual ; absolute , perfect ;...
2. perfect participle from
abhijJA %{-jAnAti} , %{-nIte} , to recognize , perceive , know , be or
become aware of ; to acknowledge , agree to , own ; to remember (either with
the fut , p. or with %{yad} and impf.) Pa1n2. 2-2 , 112 seqq. Bhat2t2
3. udvij A1. %{-vijate} (raely %{-vejate} in MBh.) P. %{-vijati}
(rarely) , to gush or spring upwards AV. iv , 15 , 3 ; to be agitated ,
grieved or afflicted ; to shudder , tremble , start ; to fear , be afraid of
(with gen. abl. or instr.) MBh. BhP. Pan5cat. c. ; to shrink from , recede ,
leave off S3atr. Bhat2t2. ; to frighten MBh. ii , ...
4. leza m. a small part or portion , particle , atom , little bit or
slight trace of (gen. or comp. ; %{-tas} and %***{[lesh]ena - what'
in brackets, added by card} , Ind. = very slightly or briefly*** ;
%{les3a-s3as} , in small pieces R.) ...
And then:
yathA \-\-\- (have no idea what those mean)
akShipAtramUrNAtantusparshamAtreNaiva mahatIM pIDAmanubhavati
netaradaN^gaM tathA vivekI svalpaduHkhAnubandhenApyudvijate .
(sandhi vigraha in ITRANS, sort of:
yathaa \-\-\-
akSi-paatram uurNaa-tantu-sparsha-maatreNa; eva mahatiiM piiDaam anubhavati
?na;itara-an.gam?[1], tathaa vivekii svalpa-duHkha-anubandhena api; udvijate .
Let's suppose 'akSi-paatram' means 'eyeball' and 'uurNaa-tantu'
means 'fiber of wool', or stuff. Then the whole sentence could
mean something like:
As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati)
great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha)
of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s
(see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api)
a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. (That's) not (the case with)
the rest of the body (na+itara-an.gaM: not other limbs).
1. The original has 'netaradaN^gaM', but we couldn't make any
sense of it, so we assumed there's a typo there, and it should
actually be 'netarAN^gaM' (netara-an.gam na+itara-an.gam)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
Are you translating Bhoga-saadhana as experiences?
No, just 'bhoga'...
Bhoga means -
worldly, materialistic; saadhana - here would be indulgence. So just
translating it as experiences doesn't seem to do justice to this
word.
All materialistic indulgences or attaching to the outer experiences,
the
outer world that is in a constant flux, the maaya.
Here are CDSL (~ Monier-Williams) definitions of those two
words:
1 bhoga 1 m. (1. %{bhuj}) any winding or curve , coil (of a serpent)
RV. c. c. ; the expanded hood of a snake Hariv. Ka1m. Pan5cat. ; a
partic. kind of military array Ka1m. ; a snake Suparn2. ; the body L.
2 bhoga 2 m. (3. %{bhuj}) enjoyment , eating , feeding on RV. c. c.
(with Jainas ` enjoying once ' , as opp. to %{upa-bhoga} , q.v.) ; use
, application S3Br. Gr2S3rS. c. ; fruition , usufruct , use of a
deposit c. Mn. Ya1jn5. ; sexual enjoyment Mn. MBh. c. ;
enjñenjoyment of the earth or of a country i.e. rule , sway Ma1rkP. ;
experiencing , feeling , perception (of pleasure or pain) Mn. MBh. c. ;
profit , utility , advantage , pleasure , delight RV. c. c. ; any
object of enjoyment (as food , a festival c.) MBh. R. ; possession ,
property , wealth , revenue Mn. MBh. c. ; hire , wages (esp. of
prostitution) L. ; (in astron.) the passing through a constellation
VarBr2S. ; the part of the ecliptic occupied by each of the 27 lunar
mansions Su1ryas. ; (in arithm.) the numerator of a fraction (?) W. ; N.
of a teacher Cat. ; (%{A}) f. N. of a Sura7n3gana1 Sin6ha7s. ; n. w.r.
for %{bhogya} or %{bhAgya}.
sAdhana mf(%{I} or %{A}) jn. leading straight to a goal , guiding well
, furthering RV. ; effective , efficient , productive of (comp.) MBh.
Ka1v. c. ; procuring Ka1v. ; conjuring up (a spirit) Katha1s. ;
denoting , designating , expressive of (comp.) Pa1n2. Sch. ; m. N. of
the author of RV. x , 157 (having the patr. %{bhauvana}) Anukr. ; (%{A})
f. accomplishment , performance (see %{mantra-s-}) ; propitiation ,
worship , adoration L. ; (%{am}) n. (ifc. f. %{A}) , the act of
mastering , overpowering , subduing Kir. Pan5cat. ; subdueing by charms
, conjuring up, summoning (spirits c.) MBh. Katha1s. ; subduing a
disease , healing , cure Sus3r. MBh. c. ; enforcing payment or recovery
(of a debt) Das3. ; bringing about , carrying out , accomplishment ,
fullilment , completion , perfection Nir. MBh. c. ; establishment of a
truth , proof. argument , demonstration Ya1jn5. Sa1h. Sarvad. ; reason
or premiss (in a syllogism , leading to a conclusion) Mudr. v , 10 ; any
means of effecting or accomplishing , any agent or instrument or
implement or utensil or apparatus , an expedient , requisite for (gen.
or comp.) Mn. R. c. ; a means of summoning or conjuring up a spirit (or
deity) Ka1lac. ; means or materials of warfare , military forces , army
or portion of an army (sg. and pl.) Hariv. Uttar. Ra1jat. ; conflict ,
battle S3is3. ; means of correcting or punishing (as ` a stick ' , `
rod ' c.) TBr. Sch. ; means of enjoyment , goods , commodities c. R.
; efficient cause or source (in general) L. ; organ of generation (male
or female) , Sah. ; (in gram.) the sense of the instrumental or agent
(as expressed by the case of a noun , opp. to the action itself) Pat. ;
preparing , making ready , preparation (of food , poison c.) Katha1s.
Ma1rkP. ; obtaining , procuring , gain , acquisition Ka1v. BhP. ;
finding out by calculation , computation Gan2it. ; fruit , result
Pan5cat. ; the conjugational affix or suffix which is placed between the
root and terminations (= %{vIharaNa} q.v.) Pa1n2. 8-4 , 30 Va1rtt. 1 ;
(only L. ` matter , material , substance , ingredient , drug , medicine
; good works , penance , self-mortification , attainment of beatitude ;
conciliation , propitiation , worship ; killing , destroying ; killing
metals , depriving them by oxydation c. of their metallic properties
[esp. said of mercury] ; burning on a funeral pile , obsequies ; setting
out , proceeding , going ; going quickly ; going after , following.).
Sorry forgot to reply this is a very exhaustive list indeed. The word
overloading i.e. different meaning for a word based on the context used
is one of the tricky things in Sanskrit. Anyway I think Bhoga Saadhana
could indeed mean contemplating on worldly pleasures or indulgences
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati) great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha) of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s (see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api) a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. Let's assume that's a fairly correct translation. It reminds me of what my TM teacher said (can't recall exactly when, but most likely during the first week after my initiation), para- phrasing: You won't become cool as a cucumber (because of TM). In fact, you might become more sensitive than before, but it doesn't affect(?) your ?self/Self? anymore. For instance, I'm sensitive as an eyeball to e.g. cigarette smoke. Also emotionally, I've become almost painfully sensitive. Furthermore, a cup of coffee nowadays makes me almost hypomanic, LoL! Used to drink 4 to 6 cups a day. What else? Some colors almost make me puke, or at least surprisingly irritated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
Ravi Yogi: Anyway I think Bhoga Saadhana could indeed mean contemplating on worldly pleasures or indulgences... Samsara is described as mundane existence, full of suffering and misery and hence is considered undesirable and worth renunciation. The Samsara is without any beginning and the soul finds itself in bondage with its karma since the beginingless time. Moksha is the only liberation from samsara... Samsara: http://tinyurl.com/7e2o5c The first time I read the Yoga Sutras I misunderstood a lot, even for a smart guy. Now, I've put the right commentaries together with the correct translations and I've been able to understand the main idea behind the Yoga System. It might be auspicious if we begin with a short review of where we're coming from. TMers will have no problem with understanding Patanjali because it is dirt simple: Yoga citta vritti nirodha. (Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind.) - Y.S. I.1.2 tada drastuh svarupe vasthanam. (When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world.) - Y.S. I.1.3 Read more: 'The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/yoga_sutras.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
It's not yer eyeballs. It's old age - the opposite of the new age. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: As (yathaa) an eyeball (akSi-paatram?) experiences (anubhavati) great (mahatiim) pain (piiDaam) by mere (maatreNa) touch (sparsha) of a fiber (tantu) of wool (uurNaa), so (tathaa) a viveki udvij-s (see footnote 3 above) in connection (anubandhena) with even (api) a minute (svalpa) (amount of) duHkha. Let's assume that's a fairly correct translation. It reminds me of what my TM teacher said (can't recall exactly when, but most likely during the first week after my initiation), para- phrasing: You won't become cool as a cucumber (because of TM). In fact, you might become more sensitive than before, but it doesn't affect(?) your ?self/Self? anymore. For instance, I'm sensitive as an eyeball to e.g. cigarette smoke. Also emotionally, I've become almost painfully sensitive. Furthermore, a cup of coffee nowadays makes me almost hypomanic, LoL! Used to drink 4 to 6 cups a day. What else? Some colors almost make me puke, or at least surprisingly irritated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things like beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get emotional about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in them, nor ignore them. But my bias is to not give them much attention. Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty the weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make any judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it either way. I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all experience is pain, (or something to that effect). But I do relate to the part about having equanimity with all things that come ones way. I don't know if that is Pantanjali or not, but I relate to that. I have seen so many things appear to be positive, and turn out less so, and vice-versa, that I just try to look at things in a little more of a dispassionate way. I know I am throwing out some jargon here, but these terms work for me. Patanjali sure wasn't speaking to skeptics, his audience most likely understood what he was referring to so I would rephrase it as clinging to experiences results in pain. Experiences would refer to the outer phenomena that is in a constant flux and by rooting yourself to the changeless self you are able to then witness it and indulge in it in a playful, detached childlike way. Dispassion is certainly the recommended way to center or tether yourself to insulate against the pain and you are absolutely right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
If you have a pitta constitution, you'll understand that it's a pain to have itches on your chest and arms. But the meditation practice tones down the itches at a milder or manageable level. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things like beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get emotional about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in them, nor ignore them. But my bias is to not give them much attention. Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty the weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make any judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it either way. I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all experience is pain, (or something to that effect). But I do relate to the part about having equanimity with all things that come ones way. I don't know if that is Pantanjali or not, but I relate to that. I have seen so many things appear to be positive, and turn out less so, and vice-versa, that I just try to look at things in a little more of a dispassionate way. I know I am throwing out some jargon here, but these terms work for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things like
beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get emotional
about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in them, nor ignore
them. But my bias is to not give them much attention.
Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty the
weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make any
judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it either way.
I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all
experience is pain, (or something to that effect).
This is from Bhoja's comment on that suutra (II 15):
vivekinaH parij~nAtakleshAdivivekasya *bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM
svAdvannam iva duHkham eva* pratikUlavedanIyamevetyarthaH .
Bhoja's Sanskrit is somewhat more tricky than, say,
Vyaasa's. My attempt at a rough translation of
bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM svAdvannam iva duHkham eva
...would be something like this (ITRANS'ish transliteation):
(To a vivekin, all) experience [dunno how to translate 'saadhana'
in 'bhoga-saadhana'] is painful like (iva) sweet food (svaadvannam svaadu +
annam) containing poison (sa-viSam: with-poison).
(As an exercise, you may try to translate 'pratikuula-vedaniiyam'
youselves:
pratikUla a. adverse (lit. against the shore), contrary, opposite,
unfavourable, inauspicious, rebellious, inimical; abstr. {-tA} f. -n. inverted
order, also as adv. {-kU3lam} inversely, contrarily.
vedanIyamfn. to be denoted or expressed or meant by (ifc. ; %{-tA} f.)
Sarvad. ; to be (or being) felt by or as (ifc. ; %{-tA} f. %{-tva} n.) ib. ; to
be known or to be made known W.)
But I do relate to the part about having equanimity with all things that come
ones way. I don't know if that is Pantanjali or not, but I relate to that.
I have seen so many things appear to be positive, and turn out less so, and
vice-versa, that I just try to look at things in a little more of a
dispassionate way. I know I am throwing out some jargon here, but these
terms work for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@
wrote:
I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things
like beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get
emotional about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in
them, nor ignore them. But my bias is to not give them much attention.
Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty
the weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make
any judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it
either way.
I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all
experience is pain, (or something to that effect).
This is from Bhoja's comment on that suutra (II 15):
vivekinaH parij~nAtakleshAdivivekasya *bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM
svAdvannam iva duHkham eva* pratikUlavedanIyamevetyarthaH .
Bhoja's Sanskrit is somewhat more tricky than, say,
Vyaasa's. My attempt at a rough translation of
bhogasAdhanaM saviShaM svAdvannam iva duHkham eva
...would be something like this (ITRANS'ish transliteation):
(To a vivekin, all) experience [dunno how to translate 'saadhana'
in 'bhoga-saadhana'] is painful like (iva) sweet food (svaadvannam
svaadu + annam) containing poison (sa-viSam: with-poison).
Are you translating Bhoga-saadhana as experiences? Bhoga means -
worldly, materialistic; saadhana - here would be indulgence. So just
translating it as experiences doesn't seem to do justice to this word.
All materialistic indulgences or attaching to the outer experiences, the
outer world that is in a constant flux, the maaya.
(As an exercise, you may try to translate 'pratikuula-vedaniiyam'
youselves:
pratikUla a. adverse (lit. against the shore), contrary, opposite,
unfavourable, inauspicious, rebellious, inimical; abstr. {-tA} f. -n.
inverted order, also as adv. {-kU3lam} inversely, contrarily.
vedanIya mfn. to be denoted or expressed or meant by (ifc. ; %{-tA}
f.) Sarvad. ; to be (or being) felt by or as (ifc. ; %{-tA} f. %{-tva}
n.) ib. ; to be known or to be made known W.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:
Are you translating Bhoga-saadhana as experiences?
No, just 'bhoga'...
Bhoga means -
worldly, materialistic; saadhana - here would be indulgence. So just
translating it as experiences doesn't seem to do justice to this word.
All materialistic indulgences or attaching to the outer experiences, the
outer world that is in a constant flux, the maaya.
Here are CDSL (~ Monier-Williams) definitions of those two
words:
1 bhoga 1 m. (1. %{bhuj}) any winding or curve , coil (of a serpent)
RV. c. c. ; the expanded hood of a snake Hariv. Ka1m. Pan5cat. ; a partic.
kind of military array Ka1m. ; a snake Suparn2. ; the body L.
2 bhoga 2 m. (3. %{bhuj}) enjoyment , eating , feeding on RV. c. c.
(with Jainas ` enjoying once ' , as opp. to %{upa-bhoga} , q.v.) ; use ,
application S3Br. Gr2S3rS. c. ; fruition , usufruct , use of a deposit c. Mn.
Ya1jn5. ; sexual enjoyment Mn. MBh. c. ; enjñenjoyment of the earth or of a
country i.e. rule , sway Ma1rkP. ; experiencing , feeling , perception (of
pleasure or pain) Mn. MBh. c. ; profit , utility , advantage , pleasure ,
delight RV. c. c. ; any object of enjoyment (as food , a festival c.) MBh.
R. ; possession , property , wealth , revenue Mn. MBh. c. ; hire , wages (esp.
of prostitution) L. ; (in astron.) the passing through a constellation VarBr2S.
; the part of the ecliptic occupied by each of the 27 lunar mansions Su1ryas. ;
(in arithm.) the numerator of a fraction (?) W. ; N. of a teacher Cat. ; (%{A})
f. N. of a Sura7n3gana1 Sin6ha7s. ; n. w.r. for %{bhogya} or %{bhAgya}.
sAdhana mf(%{I} or %{A}) jn. leading straight to a goal , guiding well ,
furthering RV. ; effective , efficient , productive of (comp.) MBh. Ka1v. c. ;
procuring Ka1v. ; conjuring up (a spirit) Katha1s. ; denoting , designating ,
expressive of (comp.) Pa1n2. Sch. ; m. N. of the author of RV. x , 157 (having
the patr. %{bhauvana}) Anukr. ; (%{A}) f. accomplishment , performance (see
%{mantra-s-}) ; propitiation , worship , adoration L. ; (%{am}) n. (ifc. f.
%{A}) , the act of mastering , overpowering , subduing Kir. Pan5cat. ;
subdueing by charms , conjuring up, summoning (spirits c.) MBh. Katha1s. ;
subduing a disease , healing , cure Sus3r. MBh. c. ; enforcing payment or
recovery (of a debt) Das3. ; bringing about , carrying out , accomplishment ,
fullilment , completion , perfection Nir. MBh. c. ; establishment of a truth ,
proof. argument , demonstration Ya1jn5. Sa1h. Sarvad. ; reason or premiss (in a
syllogism , leading to a conclusion) Mudr. v , 10 ; any means of effecting or
accomplishing , any agent or instrument or implement or utensil or apparatus ,
an expedient , requisite for (gen. or comp.) Mn. R. c. ; a means of summoning
or conjuring up a spirit (or deity) Ka1lac. ; means or materials of warfare ,
military forces , army or portion of an army (sg. and pl.) Hariv. Uttar.
Ra1jat. ; conflict , battle S3is3. ; means of correcting or punishing (as ` a
stick ' , ` rod ' c.) TBr. Sch. ; means of enjoyment , goods , commodities
c. R. ; efficient cause or source (in general) L. ; organ of generation (male
or female) , Sah. ; (in gram.) the sense of the instrumental or agent (as
expressed by the case of a noun , opp. to the action itself) Pat. ; preparing ,
making ready , preparation (of food , poison c.) Katha1s. Ma1rkP. ; obtaining
, procuring , gain , acquisition Ka1v. BhP. ; finding out by calculation ,
computation Gan2it. ; fruit , result Pan5cat. ; the conjugational affix or
suffix which is placed between the root and terminations (= %{vIharaNa} q.v.)
Pa1n2. 8-4 , 30 Va1rtt. 1 ; (only L. ` matter , material , substance ,
ingredient , drug , medicine ; good works , penance , self-mortification ,
attainment of beatitude ; conciliation , propitiation , worship ; killing ,
destroying ; killing metals , depriving them by oxydation c. of their metallic
properties [esp. said of mercury] ; burning on a funeral pile , obsequies ;
setting out , proceeding , going ; going quickly ; going after , following.).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: If you have a pitta constitution, you'll understand that it's a pain to have itches on your chest and arms. That's not the itch I typically deal with, but thanks for the advice. (-: But the meditation practice tones down the itches at a milder or manageable level. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am not sure if this applies or not. But I tend to eshew things like beautiful sunsets, or beautiful days. Or at least I don't get emotional about them. They are what they are. I neither delight in them, nor ignore them. But my bias is to not give them much attention. Kind of like the weather. You hear all the time about how nasty the weather is, or how gorgeous of a day it is. I don't care to make any judgements about the weather. It also is what it is. I'll take it either way. I don't know what Pantanjali might be referring to when he says all experience is pain, (or something to that effect). But I do relate to the part about having equanimity with all things that come ones way. I don't know if that is Pantanjali or not, but I relate to that. I have seen so many things appear to be positive, and turn out less so, and vice-versa, that I just try to look at things in a little more of a dispassionate way. I know I am throwing out some jargon here, but these terms work for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
It occurs to me that in these two paragraphs intended to diss Patanjali, there are two sentences, one in each paragraph, that inadvertently exemplify what he meant by experience is painful. Can anybody identify them? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life was, and how fulfilling. Patanjali would have me believe that this experience was painful. I think Patanjali was full of shit. Cut to last night. After a short rain that cleared the air of the atmospheric haze so normal at this time of year, I walked out to the lake near my house, spread out a blanket, lay down on my back, and gazed at the stars again. And they were majestic, even though I could only see about a tenth of the stars I used to see in Morocco. Gazing at the sky uplifted me again and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life is, and STILL is. I'd be hard-pressed to describe this experience as painful, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. Nice writing but it still smells like the sophistry of limited epistemology. However, if you just had more experience then you'd see. Nice writing though, it's a beautiful strawman. Thanks, I will meditate and pray for you and Curtis. Have a nice day, -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Color me still unconvinced that this is wise. Based on my 50-year history as a spiritual seeker of sorts, I think it's a statement based more on pathology and ego than wisdom. In this post I'm going to expand a bit upon why I think that. My first spiritual experience, or at least the first one that leaped out at me and said, Wow...this is different, was in Morocco, when I was 14. We lived in an Air Force house at the edge of the other houses on the base, which meant that outside my house there was pretty much nothing but desert. All I had to do was walk 100 yards away from my house, down into a shallow gully from which I could no longer see any of the houses, and I was as effectively alone in the desert, in the same sense as if I'd been in the middle of the Sahara. This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life was, and how fulfilling. Patanjali would have me believe that this experience was painful. I think Patanjali was full of shit. Cut to last night. After a short rain that cleared the air of the atmospheric haze so normal at this time of year, I walked out to the lake near my house, spread out a blanket, lay down on my back, and gazed at the stars again. And they were majestic, even though I could only see about a tenth of the stars I used to see in Morocco. Gazing at the sky uplifted me again and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life is, and STILL is. I'd be hard-pressed to describe this experience as painful, too. And the thing is, both experiences were ENOUGH for me. In both cases I was fully Here And Now, enjoying the beauty of creation and uplifted by it. Not a fiber of my being -- those nights in Morocco or last night in Holland -- cried out for something more, some state of attention or consciousness that could be better than the one I was already in. If Patanjali had come along and given me a talking to, I imagine that the conversation would have been something like this. Patanjali: Why are you wasting your time lying on your back looking at the sky when you could be spend- ing that same time trying to become enlightened. Don't you know that all experiences are painful? Me: Dude. You're a real buzzkill. Lighten the fuck up. Patanjali: But what I'm saying is TRUE. Because I'm the one saying it. You have to trust me on this. This experience you're having is really painful, because it arises from the fruits of the actions of ignorance. Me: So, not content to tell me I'm wasting my time, now you've got to call me ignorant? Buzz off, buzzkill. Patanjali: But I'm telling you this FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. Enlightenment is SO much better than what you have now that you're just a FOOL to settle for beauty (which is really pain, of course). Me: And I'm supposed to believe all of this just because you say it? Prove to me that such a state as enlightenment exists. Prove to me it's better or less 'painful' than what I'm experiencing right here, right now. Patanjali: I can't prove it to you, except that I AM THE LIVING PROOF! I am enlightened. If I say something, it's true. Me: Whatever. Patanjali: Bu..bu...but you've GOT to believe me. I'm trying to rescue you from IGNORANCE. Me: Again with the 'ignorant' thang. Dude, has anyone ever told you that you're a tad hostile? Have you ever considered taking up meditation? I'm told it can help even hostile people to chill out. Patanjali: OK, I'll prove my enlightenment to you. Watch this. [ he levitates, floating several feet above me in exactly the way that a brick doesn't ] Me: Neat trick. What do you use it for?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. One guy, having fun with an imaginary conversation with a possibly imaginary guy, is a *mob*? And you dare to use the word sophistry? :-) Nice writing but it still smells like the sophistry of limited epistemology. However, if you just had more experience then you'd see. You sound like Patanjali: If you only knew what I knew, and weren't so ignorant, you'd agree with me. :-) Nice writing though, it's a beautiful strawman. Thanks, I will meditate and pray for you and Curtis. Somehow that's not terribly comforting. Could you consider ignoring us instead? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Color me still unconvinced that this is wise. Based on my 50-year history as a spiritual seeker of sorts, I think it's a statement based more on pathology and ego than wisdom. In this post I'm going to expand a bit upon why I think that. My first spiritual experience, or at least the first one that leaped out at me and said, Wow...this is different, was in Morocco, when I was 14. We lived in an Air Force house at the edge of the other houses on the base, which meant that outside my house there was pretty much nothing but desert. All I had to do was walk 100 yards away from my house, down into a shallow gully from which I could no longer see any of the houses, and I was as effectively alone in the desert, in the same sense as if I'd been in the middle of the Sahara. This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life was, and how fulfilling. Patanjali would have me believe that this experience was painful. I think Patanjali was full of shit. Cut to last night. After a short rain that cleared the air of the atmospheric haze so normal at this time of year, I walked out to the lake near my house, spread out a blanket, lay down on my back, and gazed at the stars again. And they were majestic, even though I could only see about a tenth of the stars I used to see in Morocco. Gazing at the sky uplifted me again and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life is, and STILL is. I'd be hard-pressed to describe this experience as painful, too. And the thing is, both experiences were ENOUGH for me. In both cases I was fully Here And Now, enjoying the beauty of creation and uplifted by it. Not a fiber of my being -- those nights in Morocco or last night in Holland -- cried out for something more, some state of attention or consciousness that could be better than the one I was already in. If Patanjali had come along and given me a talking to, I imagine that the conversation would have been something like this. Patanjali: Why are you wasting your time lying on your back looking at the sky when you could be spend- ing that same time trying to become enlightened. Don't you know that all experiences are painful? Me: Dude. You're a real buzzkill. Lighten the fuck up. Patanjali: But what I'm saying is TRUE. Because I'm the one saying it. You have to trust me on this. This experience you're having is really painful, because it arises from the fruits of the actions of ignorance. Me: So, not content to tell me I'm wasting my time, now you've got to call me ignorant? Buzz off, buzzkill. Patanjali: But I'm telling you this FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. Enlightenment is SO much better than what you have now that you're just a FOOL to settle for beauty (which is really pain, of course). Me: And I'm supposed to believe all of this just because you say it? Prove to me that such a state as enlightenment exists. Prove to me it's better or less 'painful' than what I'm experiencing right here, right now. Patanjali: I can't prove it to you, except that I AM THE LIVING PROOF! I am enlightened. If I say something, it's true. Me: Whatever. Patanjali: Bu..bu...but you've
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Why would the fruits of actions (from ignorance) be painful? Because they harbor attachment which perpetuates the cycle of Samsara or rebirth, hence they are considered 'painful' to the enlightened. The key here is action born of *ignorance* (i.e. ego), those actions which are offered or surrendered to the Lord of Creation have no attachment and are therefore *non-binding*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Why would the fruits of actions (from ignorance) be painful? Because they harbor attachment which perpetuates the cycle of Samsara or rebirth, hence they are considered 'painful' to the enlightened. Hindu nihilism. Some of us do not desire to be free from rebirth. Some of the enlightened do not believe that being enlightened means that there is no rebirth. And most important, if the enlightened are so affronted by an IDEA (being reborn) as to consider it painful, seems to me that enlightenment isn't worth much. :-) The key here is action born of *ignorance* (i.e. ego), those actions which are offered or surrendered to the Lord of Creation have no attachment and are therefore *non-binding*. With all due respect, bullshit. Actions are binding depending on the *action*, not on what one claims is the motive or intent for the action or who it's dedicated to. This act of genocide is going out to the Lord Of Creation. :-) And if you don't believe me, go out and kill somebody and offer your action to whatever God or Lord you want. Then use the above defense in court. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. One guy, having fun with an imaginary conversation with a possibly imaginary guy, is a *mob*? And you dare to use the word sophistry? :-) Yep, inciting and intending to be incendiary. Oh sure it is in mob and violent. You come on here demagogically saying something is no good because you don't like it. Curtis joins in. Joe and SevenRay pile on and we got a regular FFL book and Patanjali-in-effigy strawman burning by mob. A virtual internet mob in shocking violence. Just looking on as a conservative meditator at this thread and that one before where you started all this, it's evidently anti-science, anti-spiritual and hateful.Hell, Curtis even admits it: And on hotties who make my... My kinda philosophy. you get the picture. I am the guy that spiritual books warn against. I have more in common with this girl than any yogi: http://www.maniacworld.com/young-girl-turns-to-the-dark-side. Party on, Darth. :-) fairfieldLife/message/274571 In the Science of cause and effect we are judged spiritually here and after. Yep, buyer beware. -Buck Nice writing but it still smells like the sophistry of limited epistemology. However, if you just had more experience then you'd see. You sound like Patanjali: If you only knew what I knew, and weren't so ignorant, you'd agree with me. :-) Nice writing though, it's a beautiful strawman. Thanks, I will meditate and pray for you and Curtis. Somehow that's not terribly comforting. Could you consider ignoring us instead? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Color me still unconvinced that this is wise. Based on my 50-year history as a spiritual seeker of sorts, I think it's a statement based more on pathology and ego than wisdom. In this post I'm going to expand a bit upon why I think that. My first spiritual experience, or at least the first one that leaped out at me and said, Wow...this is different, was in Morocco, when I was 14. We lived in an Air Force house at the edge of the other houses on the base, which meant that outside my house there was pretty much nothing but desert. All I had to do was walk 100 yards away from my house, down into a shallow gully from which I could no longer see any of the houses, and I was as effectively alone in the desert, in the same sense as if I'd been in the middle of the Sahara. This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life was, and how fulfilling. Patanjali would have me believe that this experience was painful. I think Patanjali was full of shit. Cut to last night. After a short rain that cleared the air of the atmospheric haze so normal at this time of year, I walked out to the lake near my house, spread out a blanket, lay down on my back, and gazed at the stars again. And they were majestic, even though I could only see about a tenth of the stars I used to see in Morocco. Gazing at the sky uplifted me again and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life is, and STILL is. I'd be hard-pressed to describe this experience as painful, too. And the thing is, both experiences were ENOUGH for me. In both cases I was fully Here And Now, enjoying the beauty of creation and uplifted by it. Not a fiber of my being -- those nights in Morocco or last night in Holland -- cried out for something more, some state of attention or consciousness that could be better than the one I was already in. If Patanjali had come along and given me a talking to, I imagine that the conversation would have been something like this. Patanjali: Why are you wasting your time lying on your back looking at the sky when you could be spend- ing that same
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Hindu nihilism. Some of us do not desire to be free from rebirth. Some of the enlightened do not believe that being enlightened means that there is no rebirth. And most important, if the enlightened are so affronted by an IDEA (being reborn) as to consider it painful, seems to me that enlightenment isn't worth much. :-) We're talking about 'mandatory' reincarnation here, not the avatara or in Buddhism the Bodhisattva vow... With all due respect, bullshit. Actions are binding depending on the *action*, not on what one claims is the motive or intent for the action or who it's dedicated to. This act of genocide is going out to the Lord Of Creation. :-) You forgot the line on water analogy in your TM playbook, tut, tut! :-) And if you don't believe me, go out and kill somebody and offer your action to whatever God or Lord you want. Then use the above defense in court. :-) The bliss of Brahman is the same in a dark prison as it would be in a marble palace.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. One guy, having fun with an imaginary conversation with a possibly imaginary guy, is a *mob*? And you dare to use the word sophistry? :-) Yep, inciting and intending to be incendiary. Oh sure it is in mob and violent. You come on here demagogically saying something is no good because you don't like it. Curtis joins in. Joe and SevenRay pile on and we got a regular FFL book and Patanjali-in-effigy strawman burning by mob. A virtual internet mob in shocking violence. Just looking on as a conservative meditator at this thread and that one before where you started all this, it's evidently anti-science, anti-spiritual and hateful. If I thought for a moment you were serious, I'd be shocked at your idiocy. Since I don't, I don't think anything about what you said at all. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. Nice writing but it still smells like the sophistry of limited epistemology. However, if you just had more experience then you'd see. Nice writing though, it's a beautiful strawman. Thanks, I will meditate and pray for you and Curtis. Really? Is this more shtick or are you actually going to think words in your head including my name? I would be fascinated to hear what they are. And as far as meditating for me, you need to just go back to the mantra whenever you think about me in meditation. Plus I am meditating for myself and wont need the boost, but thanks anyway. Concerning Patanjali, he said some wild stuff about super-normal abilities. I haven't seen any evidence for them yet. Even Bobby Roth admits no one in the movement has hovered. He claims to be skeptical of any account of someone hovering. So I'm gunna have to put Patanjali into the imaginative writer camp till someone can demonstrate that ANY of his claimed powers have been mastered by ANYONE. So far it has proven to be a crock in the movement. Except guys like Larry Domash claiming he found his pen using the finding stuff siddhi! What is so bad about our wonderful powers of mind and body that we have to fantasize about being super duper? Have any of us reached the limits of even our physical bodies through training and exercise or our mind's abilities through education? Sometimes I feel that yoga is a copout on actual hard work it takes for us to improve our lives. It is so beguiling to imagine that by slacking off for a period of time each day we would be gaining magical powers. Sure beats doing a hundred push-ups doesn't it? Or cracking a few hard to read books. Books that don't promise Harry Potter powers to the reader. Have a nice day, -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Color me still unconvinced that this is wise. Based on my 50-year history as a spiritual seeker of sorts, I think it's a statement based more on pathology and ego than wisdom. In this post I'm going to expand a bit upon why I think that. My first spiritual experience, or at least the first one that leaped out at me and said, Wow...this is different, was in Morocco, when I was 14. We lived in an Air Force house at the edge of the other houses on the base, which meant that outside my house there was pretty much nothing but desert. All I had to do was walk 100 yards away from my house, down into a shallow gully from which I could no longer see any of the houses, and I was as effectively alone in the desert, in the same sense as if I'd been in the middle of the Sahara. This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life was, and how fulfilling. Patanjali would have me believe that this experience was painful. I think Patanjali was full of shit. Cut to last night. After a short rain that cleared the air of the atmospheric haze so normal at this time of year, I walked out to the lake near my house, spread out a blanket, lay down on my back, and gazed at the stars again. And they were majestic, even though I could only see about a tenth of the stars I used to see in Morocco. Gazing at the sky uplifted me again and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful* life is, and STILL is. I'd be hard-pressed to describe this experience as painful, too. And the thing is, both experiences were ENOUGH for me. In both cases I was fully Here And Now, enjoying the beauty of creation and uplifted by it. Not a fiber of my being -- those nights in Morocco or last night in Holland -- cried out for something more, some state of attention or consciousness that could be better than the one I was already in. If Patanjali had come along and given me a talking to, I imagine that the conversation would have been something like this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: O what a bunch of evil sophistry. This thread reads as careful veiled spiritual hate. The beating of poor old Patanjali by mob. One guy, having fun with an imaginary conversation with a possibly imaginary guy, is a *mob*? And you dare to use the word sophistry? :-) Yep, inciting and intending to be incendiary. Oh sure it is in mob and violent. You come on here demagogically saying something is no good because you don't like it. Curtis joins in. Joe and SevenRay pile on and we got a regular FFL book and Patanjali-in-effigy strawman burning by mob. I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus. Trying to miscarriage our opinions as violent reveals how delicate these ideas are. They can only be discussed by people who have bought in already because disagreeing is violent! I believe you were appealing to emotions there for the effect of propping up a weak argument. I wonder what branch of human knowledge uses such techniques...oh I don't know...SOPHISTRY! (Please read the last in Dana Carvy's Church lady voice.) One last gem below: A virtual internet mob in shocking violence. Just looking on as a conservative meditator at this thread and that one before where you started all this, it's evidently anti-science, anti-spiritual and hateful.Hell, Curtis even admits it: And on hotties who make my... My kinda philosophy. you get the picture. I am the guy that spiritual books warn against. I have more in common with this girl than any yogi: http://www.maniacworld.com/young-girl-turns-to-the-dark-side. Party on, Darth. :-) fairfieldLife/message/274571 In the Science of cause and effect we are judged spiritually here and after. So you have factual knowledge that if we don't toe the line and agree with you we are going to be judged after our deaths? Uh huh. Sure you do. I'll bet you know all about what happens after people die. Me: I don't know and I have no reason to believe you do either. Buck: I do know and am certain of what happens to people who do not share my beliefs after death. Let's rate each one on the Prittenberg clinical arrogance spectrum. Really Doug. Can't you just serve up some proof of your claims instead of this ad hominem diversion? Yep, buyer beware. I didn't see this posted on the distance healing section of the Website. I suggest adding it. -Buck Nice writing but it still smells like the sophistry of limited epistemology. However, if you just had more experience then you'd see. You sound like Patanjali: If you only knew what I knew, and weren't so ignorant, you'd agree with me. :-) Nice writing though, it's a beautiful strawman. Thanks, I will meditate and pray for you and Curtis. Somehow that's not terribly comforting. Could you consider ignoring us instead? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Color me still unconvinced that this is wise. Based on my 50-year history as a spiritual seeker of sorts, I think it's a statement based more on pathology and ego than wisdom. In this post I'm going to expand a bit upon why I think that. My first spiritual experience, or at least the first one that leaped out at me and said, Wow...this is different, was in Morocco, when I was 14. We lived in an Air Force house at the edge of the other houses on the base, which meant that outside my house there was pretty much nothing but desert. All I had to do was walk 100 yards away from my house, down into a shallow gully from which I could no longer see any of the houses, and I was as effectively alone in the desert, in the same sense as if I'd been in the middle of the Sahara. This was 1960. Global pollution had not at that point obscured the skies. So I'd go out there in the middle of the night, lie down on my back, and just gaze at the stars. *Millions* of stars. Back then, as seen from North Africa, there was not a patch of sky bigger than the little fingernail on my hand held out at arm's length that didn't contain stars; the sky was *all* stars. And it was majestic. Gazing at it uplifted me and left me with nothing but an appreciation of how incredibly *beautiful*
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
turquoiseb: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali... Samadhi, dukkha, suffering, nirodha (cessation) are crucial terms in Buddhist vocabulary. The doctrine of suffering is the core of what Buddhists believe the Buddha taught after gaining enlightenment. Patanjali's ashtang eight-limbed practice is parallel to the eight-limbed path of Shakya the Muni. So, the original topic was Patanjali's Yoga, which is based on original Buddhism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
curtisdeltablues: I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus... But, for some reason you practiced yoga for fourteen years and majored in philosophy at MUM? It just doesn't make any sense! Samkhya is the philosophical foundation of all Indian culture, the measuring rod of the entire Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh world-view. So, what exactly, were you striving for in the TMO and at MUM? Let there be soundless repetition of [the pranava] and meditation thereon (Patanjali Y.S., Book One V. 28).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
fish market, 1935 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/32470.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: curtisdeltablues: I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus... But, for some reason you practiced yoga for fourteen years and majored in philosophy at MUM? It just doesn't make any sense! Samkhya is the philosophical foundation of all Indian culture, the measuring rod of the entire Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh world-view. So, what exactly, were you striving for in the TMO and at MUM? Let there be soundless repetition of [the pranava] and meditation thereon (Patanjali Y.S., Book One V. 28).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: curtisdeltablues: I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus... But, for some reason you practiced yoga for fourteen years and majored in philosophy at MUM? It just doesn't make any sense! Actually 15 the first go around. Do you have difficulty sorting out different time periods in a person's life? Or the idea that you might believe one thing at one time and on further maturation change your beliefs? Or even the concept of someone changing their mind as they experience more of life? I think this may be at the root of why it doesn't make sense to you. Samkhya is the philosophical foundation of all Indian culture, the measuring rod of the entire Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh world-view. You may be overstating that since Samkhya came a lot later than many of the principles in Hinduism. And I'm not sure how much it influenced the Buddhists and the Sikhs. My guess is that it was political rather than philosophical forces that serve as the foundation of those cultures. People really aren't that deep in my experience. So, what exactly, were you striving for in the TMO and at MUM? I was seeking enlightenment in the terms Maharishi described it. I changed my mind about the validity of that endeavor and that changed my life and relationship with is teaching. (again the different time periods thing) Let there be soundless repetition of [the pranava] and meditation thereon (Patanjali Y.S., Book One V. 28). I'm sure he may have some interesting insights into the human mind but it is hard for me to get past the wacky chapter. It kinda detracts from any sense of credibility he has for me. Lets just say I wouldn't consider him an expert in anything other than tall tale telling. He was pretty good at that considering how many people read that people can fly through the air and believe it today. PT Barnum would have said Dude I'm a bullshitter but you are too much even for me!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
You seem bound to post off-topic photos, so I guess to that extend you are not free. Or, you feel free to take up internet band-space for no good reason. Yifu: fish market, 1935 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/32470.jpg I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus... But, for some reason you practiced yoga for fourteen years and majored in philosophy at MUM? It just doesn't make any sense! Samkhya is the philosophical foundation of all Indian culture, the measuring rod of the entire Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh world-view. So, what exactly, were you striving for in the TMO and at MUM? Let there be soundless repetition of [the pranava] and meditation thereon (Patanjali Y.S., Book One V. 28).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
There's a deep message there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: You seem bound to post off-topic photos, so I guess to that extend you are not free. Or, you feel free to take up internet band-space for no good reason. Yifu: fish market, 1935 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/32470.jpg I just think he was full of it and that his premises about reality are bogus... But, for some reason you practiced yoga for fourteen years and majored in philosophy at MUM? It just doesn't make any sense! Samkhya is the philosophical foundation of all Indian culture, the measuring rod of the entire Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh world-view. So, what exactly, were you striving for in the TMO and at MUM? Let there be soundless repetition of [the pranava] and meditation thereon (Patanjali Y.S., Book One V. 28).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
curtisdeltablues: You may be overstating that since Samkhya came a lot later than many of the principles in Hinduism... Samkhya came long before 'Hinduism'; before the historical Buddha (563BCE), and before Buddhism. That's why historians think the Buddha may have been influenced by Samkhya. Patanjali's (200 BCE) yoga is derived from Samkhya. Likewise Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Sikhism, all influenced by the Samkhya dualism. Samkhya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya According to Theos Bernard, ...the Samkhya School of Kapila, on which the Yoga Sutras are based, is the oldest school of Hindu Philosophy, and is itself an attempt to harmonize the Vedas through reason. Work cited: Foundations of Hindu Philosophy by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Author of 'Hatha Yoga', 'Penthouse of the Gods', 'Heaven Lies Within' etc. Philosophical Library 1947
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, I'm going to bring it back to its original subject, Patanjali, and a quote of his from the Yoga Sutras. However, the wise (though their own mind is totally free of all sorrow) consider all experiences painful as they are all the fruits of the actions of ignorance. (Y.S. II.15). Why would the fruits of actions (from ignorance) be painful? Because they harbor attachment which perpetuates the cycle of Samsara or rebirth, hence they are considered 'painful' to the enlightened. The key here is action born of *ignorance* (i.e. ego), those actions which are offered or surrendered to the Lord of Creation have no attachment and are therefore *non-binding*. Thinking and action infused with 'Being' is always 'Non-binding'.. Thinking and action infused with small self 'Ego' is always binding... So, there ya' go... r.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Conversation With Patanjali
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Ignoring attempts to derail this thread and make it all about Buddhism, If experience of reality *isn't* painful to him, why does Barry have to start his rant against Patanjali with a lie? Compulsive denial and distortion of reality are prima facie evidence, seems to me, that one finds one's experience of reality painful.
