Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
On Feb 15, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Premanand wrote: > I agree Vaj. But if one is too achievement-orientated then the process can be > strained and cause headache. However, in my experience, if one is easy-going > about the whole business, and accepts that sometimes one will be more in tune > with the process than others, then great depths of silence can be attained > easily. And the effect of that silence is deeply refreshing.. Oh but then you > know I guess. The main thing is that people are not put off by this > 'difficult' label which for so long has kept people from finding the stark > simplicity and fulfillingness of meditation. Some teachers warn against over reliance on "silence". I think once you've recognized silence, it's time to move on, unless you're serious about deeply cultivating that angle of the path. Otherwise you just become addicted to your meditation, which is not a good thing. You become an endogenous heroin addict. IMO Robert Thurman nailed it when he said: If you go meditate right away, as an ignorant person, you will [simply] deepen your ignorance! Meditation is a neutral tool. It will heighten whatever your state is--whatever your understanding is--so that is what they [his teachers] would say. But then, it's very interesting, you [the moderator] were saying about transcendence, because when I did get to the parts in my [meditation] books that my original teacher, an old Mongolian gentleman (who strangely lived in New Jersey, not India!)...when I got to the parts on Dhyana or Contemplation, I was into doing whatever Nagarjuna said (in the book). I would get into these abstracted states pretty easily actually. And that man [his guru] had a diabolical sense--I think he must have been clairvoyant or something--every time I would begin to "float out" of the world, he'd "show up", even if it was 2 a.m.! He'd say "why aren't you sleeping!?"; "You'd better come have some yogurt with me!" Or if it was the daytime he'd say "let's go do some work in the garden--you're just sitting around!" And he would always interrupt me. And even when we got to the part of the text he'd say "you don't need that part and more study!" And I think because I would have become attached to a kind of quietism--that I think a lot of Buddhists and a lot of spiritual people get into. Where they find the world "jangly" and bothersome. And then they withdraw into a place where they don't have to think about that. It's kind of like a "Prozac" [state of consciousness]. They get a lot of endorphins flying and they really "transcend". And it isn't a true nondualism. There's no compassion in it. There's a self-centered, kind of narcissistic thing. There's a great danger in meditation. --- Robert Thurman, Global Spirit, The Spiritual Quest (LinkTV) 14:20
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > "TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most > people. Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable > using the WILL.." > > 'Simpler'? I'm not so sure about that. TM relies on the > fairly finely balanced use of mantra repetition, which > masquerades as simple but is actually otherwise. I wonder > how many who say that concentration of willpower is more > difficult than TM have actually tried it? I did. Couldn't get anywhere, hated it, gave it up as a bad job. Main reason I tried TM is that it *didn't* use concentration.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > I agree Vaj. But if one is too achievement-orientated then the process can be > strained and cause headache. However, in my experience, if one is easy-going > about the whole business, and accepts that sometimes one will be more in tune > with the process than others, then great depths of silence can be attained > easily. And the effect of that silence is deeply refreshing.. Oh but then you > know I guess. The main thing is that people are not put off by this > 'difficult' label which for so long has kept people from finding the stark > simplicity and fulfillingness of meditation. TM IS easy, because it's a passive process, recommended by Yogis down through time, but it's not the BEST way according to Swami Yogananda. Direct control of the Prana is more direct apparently, pranayama is the key to transcending or ascending the chakras which is the only way to enlightenment. The seven doors must be opened and the spinal fire kundalini (shakti) must be awakened to ascend to Shiva the seventh Chakra. You can meditate all you want but until you actually awaken kundalini you are merely experiencing peace, which is good but not the final aim of Yoga.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
I agree Vaj. But if one is too achievement-orientated then the process can be strained and cause headache. However, in my experience, if one is easy-going about the whole business, and accepts that sometimes one will be more in tune with the process than others, then great depths of silence can be attained easily. And the effect of that silence is deeply refreshing.. Oh but then you know I guess. The main thing is that people are not put off by this 'difficult' label which for so long has kept people from finding the stark simplicity and fulfillingness of meditation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:57 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > > > > > Is it not possible for you to mix and match the strengths of the various > > > techniques, e.g. take it easy whilst using willpower, letting go of > > > discursive thought gradually, gently? > > > > Several have tried this, most ending up with a terrible headache. > > > Then they didn't know what they were doing. The longer you dive, the more > relaxed you gotta be. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:57 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > > > Is it not possible for you to mix and match the strengths of the various > > techniques, e.g. take it easy whilst using willpower, letting go of > > discursive thought gradually, gently? > > Several have tried this, most ending up with a terrible headache. Then they didn't know what they were doing. The longer you dive, the more relaxed you gotta be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > Is it not possible for you to mix and match the strengths of the various > techniques, e.g. take it easy whilst using willpower, letting go of > discursive thought gradually, gently? Several have tried this, most ending up with a terrible headache.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
nadarrombus: > > you don't seem to have decent critical thinking > > skills, reading skills or the desire to understand > > truth... > > Vaj: > That's our Little Willy. > So, Vaj, you don't have all the answers. LOL! "Yoga citta vritti nirodha." (Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind.) Yoga Sutra, I.1.2 There is a transformation of primary, undifferentiated matter or prakriti into the constituents of existence, the three gunas. Reversing this process through the practice of TM, that is, experiencing a less excited state of mental thought, transcending to the least excited state of thought, is the opposite of the evolutionary process i.e. involution, or tracing the transformation in reverse order. The three stages delineated by Sage Patanjali are transcendental consciousness, unity consciousness, and cosmic consciousness. Read more: From: Willytex Subject: The Discriminating Adept Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: November 20, 2001 http://tinyurl.com/ykwclye
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
nadarrombus: > patanjali is the creator of the real siddhi > program, patanjali golden dome, not maharishi > golden dome... > FYI: The 'Patanjali' Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge is located in Fairfield, Iowa, USA. The 'Maharishi' Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge is located in Austin, Texas, USA. > krishna is the creator of transcendental meditation, > the song of god-gita not the song of maharishi. > maharishi is the middle man and as it is known > among the wise to get the real deal you need to > eliminate the middle man... > According to our Guru Dev, transcendental meditation is the 'real thing, the whole thing'. > you don't seem to have decent critical thinking > skills, reading skills or the desire to understand > truth which is standard tmo, - the middle man sold > you down the river... > All I'm saying is that Patanjali didn't say anything about the TM bija mantras or where they came from. If you can find a TM bija mantra in the Yoga Sutras, why not just post it, and let us TMer experts decide if it's a TM bija mantra or not. Simple.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
> > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, strictly > > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. > > Vaj: > According to bija-mantra dictionaries, AUM is a > bija mantra. > You don't get 'bija' mantras from a book or a dictionary - you get bija mantras from a guru in an initiation ceremony. The mono syllable 'AUM' is a mantra, not a bija mantra, Vaj. If you don't get the bija from a guru, then it does not have the 'shakti', it's just a nonsensical sound, without the empowerment. Any word or phrase can be a bija mantra if the guru says it is. According to the Swami Ageananda Bharati, AUM is a mantra 'by courtesy only'. For example, AUM or OM isn't included in the Gayatri. Om is not a bija mantra used in TM. > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. > > > Duh. The YS is not a text on mantra, it's a Nath > text on yoga, maybe that's why! > The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali (circa 200 BC), was composed long before the advent of the Nath tradition (Matsyendranath). Bija mantras didn't come into use in India until the age of the Indian alchemists (Naga Arjuna). > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > > word translations and they are near the same. > > > Actually according to the MUM download on the > Gita, Marshy translated it. > It was probably a collaborative effort between the Maharishi, Vernon Katz, and his students. But, it's pretty obvious who made most of the cogent comments. Almost all translations of the Gita follow a standard linguistics and transliteration. BHAGAVAD-GITA: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html > Interesting for someone who couldn't read > Sanskrit! > Yes, it's interesting why you'd assume that the Maharishi, a physics graduate of Allahabad University, and a student of spiritual paths for fifty years, couldn't read or speak Sanskrit. You're not even making any sense! Almost any child in grade school level can be taught how to read and speak a language in just a few years, Vaj. The Maharishi could not only read and write Sanskrit - he was obviously multi-lingual, being able to converse on spiritual subjects in not only Sanskrit, but Hindi, English, Urdu and probably several other common prakrits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > Is it not possible for you to mix and match the strengths of the various > techniques, e.g. take it easy whilst using willpower, letting go of > discursive thought gradually, gently? They are two distinct different approaches, they not the same, not at all. One, Concentration or Hong Sau uses effort and control, as you progress your concentration becomes more intense, the objective of raising the prana up through the spine to the Ajna Chakra, is accomplished, it takes years and years to accomplish this. TM indirectly controls the body by influencing the mind and brings about what Swami Yogananda calls 'Conscious Sleep' but this is just the first state of meditation, if you're interested further read his book entitled "The Science of Religion" page 51 under "The Meditational Method" and "The Scientific Method or Yoga", I think he describes TM very well in the meditational method. Using Kriya Yoga one learns to consciously die..and return, as you may already know. > If and when meditation is taught outside of a religious context, without the > use of a puja or magic prayers, I suspect that science will show that it is > not only easy and effective, but will concern itself with why it had been > overlooked for so long. And it will probably blame those who described > meditation as difficult and those who asserted it took many years to learn > and practise. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > > > > > "TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. > > > Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.." > > > > > > 'Simpler'? I'm not so sure about that. TM relies on the fairly finely > > > balanced use of mantra repetition, which masquerades as simple but is > > > actually otherwise. I wonder how many who say that concentration of > > > willpower is more difficult than TM have actually tried it? > > > > > > I think we tend to parrot ideas without really doing any ammount of > > > homework. Actually, it was a feature of Maharishi's modus operandus, to > > > find out about 'rival' systems of meditation, but unfortunately he always > > > made them out to be either ineffectual or too difficult. Now, given the > > > teaching, I suspect that a great many practitioners of TM would have > > > found some of those 'difficult' techniques quite a lot easier than they > > > imagined. > > > > I practiced Hong Sau for almost a year, and believe me, it's more > > difficult, but then it's a completely different approach. Using > > Concentration, the object is to withdraw the prana to the point between the > > eyebrows, once having accomplished that, the soul or consciousness is free > > from the bodily cage as they say. > > > > TM is almost always accompanied with rest, not so all the time with Hong > > Sau or Concentration, it takes time to master it, it's something you have > > to practice in order to accomplish. TM is almost automatic but the results > > are unpredictable. > > > > Once the technique of Concentration is Mastered you can go into Samadhi, at > > will, anytime. Personally I feel TM is more suited for me, it's easier, the > > only problem is falling asleep frequently.. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
Is it not possible for you to mix and match the strengths of the various techniques, e.g. take it easy whilst using willpower, letting go of discursive thought gradually, gently? If and when meditation is taught outside of a religious context, without the use of a puja or magic prayers, I suspect that science will show that it is not only easy and effective, but will concern itself with why it had been overlooked for so long. And it will probably blame those who described meditation as difficult and those who asserted it took many years to learn and practise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > > > "TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. > > Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.." > > > > 'Simpler'? I'm not so sure about that. TM relies on the fairly finely > > balanced use of mantra repetition, which masquerades as simple but is > > actually otherwise. I wonder how many who say that concentration of > > willpower is more difficult than TM have actually tried it? > > > > I think we tend to parrot ideas without really doing any ammount of > > homework. Actually, it was a feature of Maharishi's modus operandus, to > > find out about 'rival' systems of meditation, but unfortunately he always > > made them out to be either ineffectual or too difficult. Now, given the > > teaching, I suspect that a great many practitioners of TM would have found > > some of those 'difficult' techniques quite a lot easier than they imagined. > > I practiced Hong Sau for almost a year, and believe me, it's more difficult, > but then it's a completely different approach. Using Concentration, the > object is to withdraw the prana to the point between the eyebrows, once > having accomplished that, the soul or consciousness is free from the bodily > cage as they say. > > TM is almost always accompanied with rest, not so all the time with Hong Sau > or Concentration, it takes time to master it, it's something you have to > practice in order to accomplish. TM is almost automatic but the results are > unpredictable. > > Once the technique of Concentration is Mastered you can go into Samadhi, at > will, anytime. Personally I feel TM is more suited for me, it's easier, the > only problem is falling asleep frequently.. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > "TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. > Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.." > > 'Simpler'? I'm not so sure about that. TM relies on the fairly finely > balanced use of mantra repetition, which masquerades as simple but is > actually otherwise. I wonder how many who say that concentration of willpower > is more difficult than TM have actually tried it? > > I think we tend to parrot ideas without really doing any ammount of homework. > Actually, it was a feature of Maharishi's modus operandus, to find out about > 'rival' systems of meditation, but unfortunately he always made them out to > be either ineffectual or too difficult. Now, given the teaching, I suspect > that a great many practitioners of TM would have found some of those > 'difficult' techniques quite a lot easier than they imagined. I practiced Hong Sau for almost a year, and believe me, it's more difficult, but then it's a completely different approach. Using Concentration, the object is to withdraw the prana to the point between the eyebrows, once having accomplished that, the soul or consciousness is free from the bodily cage as they say. TM is almost always accompanied with rest, not so all the time with Hong Sau or Concentration, it takes time to master it, it's something you have to practice in order to accomplish. TM is almost automatic but the results are unpredictable. Once the technique of Concentration is Mastered you can go into Samadhi, at will, anytime. Personally I feel TM is more suited for me, it's easier, the only problem is falling asleep frequently..
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
"TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.." 'Simpler'? I'm not so sure about that. TM relies on the fairly finely balanced use of mantra repetition, which masquerades as simple but is actually otherwise. I wonder how many who say that concentration of willpower is more difficult than TM have actually tried it? I think we tend to parrot ideas without really doing any ammount of homework. Actually, it was a feature of Maharishi's modus operandus, to find out about 'rival' systems of meditation, but unfortunately he always made them out to be either ineffectual or too difficult. Now, given the teaching, I suspect that a great many practitioners of TM would have found some of those 'difficult' techniques quite a lot easier than they imagined. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > > > bija mantras come from... > > > > > > nadarrombus: > > > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > > > which is used... > > > > > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly > > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. > > > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. > > I also don't think Patanjali taught TM type meditation, He apparently taught > *Concentration* (Dharana) as a means of controlling the prana, a much more > difficult but volitional process, one used by the great Paramahansa Yogananda. > > TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. > Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%81 > > > > > > > > > maharishi translated and made commentaries > > > changing the sanskrit to english according > > > to his preference > > > > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > > word translations and they are near the same. > > > > > > > > There are some question that are not answered in > > > > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > > > > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > > > > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > > > > > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > > > > literature in english... > > > > > > > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > > > > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > > > > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > > > > repeated in English. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > I *did* my thing. I stated my opinion. If someone > has a different opinion, they are more than entitled > to express it. If they can do so without ad hominem > and without an obvious attempt to provoke an argument, > more power to them...they have my respect and admir- > ation. In his first three posts today, Barry models the kind of ad hominem-less expression of opinion that has his respect and admiration: > But some have so little > ability *to* focus that they need to be trained > to focus on something *else* for a while. > Others cling to the notion > of the magic mantra even more tightly. The > former are called "meditators." The latter > are called suckers. Examine your beliefs about > mantras; they reveal what group you're in. - > More than *any* spiritual organization or movement > I have encountered, I have found that TMer are > the most hung up on "gaining powers." It's as if, > as a group, they feel so insignificant and power- > less that the thing they want the most is to be > considered significant and powerful. - > Same old topics, trotted out by the same > old angry people as if they should receive the > same old attention. A couple of them went into > actual meltdowns trying to start fights. > An embarrassment of poverty. Poor in intellect, > poor in spirit, and above all poor in love. Just sayin'... > If, on the other hand, all they see in my opinions, or > in Paul's, is one more opportunity to provoke an > argument and suck as many people as possible into it, > I merely feel sorry for them, and will allow them to > do so while covered in piss of their own making. Now, how could one *possibly* think Barry was trying to provoke anybody in those first three posts? How could they *dream* the piss they find themselves wiping off after those posts was not of their own making?
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > > bija mantras come from... > > > > nadarrombus: > > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > > which is used... > > > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. I also don't think Patanjali taught TM type meditation, He apparently taught *Concentration* (Dharana) as a means of controlling the prana, a much more difficult but volitional process, one used by the great Paramahansa Yogananda. TM is a much more passive process, but simpler for most people. Concentration, once mastered, is more controllable using the WILL.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%81 > > > > maharishi translated and made commentaries > > changing the sanskrit to english according > > to his preference > > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > word translations and they are near the same. > > > > > There are some question that are not answered in > > > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > > > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > > > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > > > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > > > literature in english... > > > > > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > > > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > > > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > > > repeated in English. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > "Patanjali doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used in TM, and > where the bija mantras come from." > > It appears that the prime use of a bija mantra is to invoke a particular > 'god' or 'goddess'. In fact it is said that Guru Dev would not give out a > mantra without knowing of the devotee's preference for a particular god. > Seems to me that the process of 'transcendence' is not dependent on the use > of a mantra but upon the abandonment of thought. I suspect that many > successfully 'transcend' without ever getting initiated, just sitting still > and letting go of thought can do it. *Vibration* is the essence of bija mantra, whether TM or otherwise (as in Hong Sau or Hamsa). By repeating or setting up this vibration within your mind you are attracting that vibration or Devata (Devatas are nothing but sound vibrations animating the Universe, their essence is bliss). By striking one tuning fork all the tuning forks in the general vicinity attuned to that frequency will vibrate as well, this is what Mantra meditation is, IMO. Through affinity, one is attracted to a particular vibration or formless devata and in time that devata can appear to you in ANY form. So Mantras would be an invaluable asset for meditation, IMO. By repeating the mantra you are attracting the Devata or Bliss.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:25 PM, WillyTex wrote: > > > > > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > > bija mantras come from... > > > > nadarrombus: > > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > > which is used... > > > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. According to bija-mantra dictionaries, AUM is a bija mantra. > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. Duh. The YS is not a text on mantra, it's a Nath text on yoga, maybe that's why! > > > > > maharishi translated and made commentaries > > changing the sanskrit to english according > > to his preference > > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > word translations and they are near the same. Actually according to the MUM download on the Gita, Marshy translated it. Interesting for someone who couldn't read Sanskrit!
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > There is a presumption in TM that one needs a mantra in order > to meditate, that a word (meaningless or otherwise) is needed > to be repeated in order to adjust the mind towards transcending. > I propose that the mantra is not only not necessary, but that > its function is other than its stated purpose. I wanted to comment again on this post for two reasons. The first is commend Paul on having stated his opinion so concisely. The second is to point out that it *is* an opinion, as was my followup post agreeing with it. There is a difference in my mind between stating one's opinion and trying to start an argument. I made three posts this morning (my time) over coffee. ALL were opinion -- nothing more, nothing less. My suspicion is that some here will attempt to turn them into arguments. This is fair notice that in doing so, they will be pissing into the wind, and thus exposing themselves to needless spatter. :-) Paul's original post will be seen as "provocative" by some who are...uh...attached to the TM dogma, as will be my reply. But if they choose to *react* to the perceived "provocations" as if they *have* to be provoked, or as if it's somehow noble *to* be provoked (especially if they turn it into an ad hominem fest), I'm sorry but that's their issue, not mine. I *did* my thing. I stated my opinion. If someone has a different opinion, they are more than entitled to express it. If they can do so without ad hominem and without an obvious attempt to provoke an argument, more power to them...they have my respect and admir- ation. If they do it interestingly enough, they might also have my participation in followup discussions. If, on the other hand, all they see in my opinions, or in Paul's, is one more opportunity to provoke an argument and suck as many people as possible into it, I merely feel sorry for them, and will allow them to do so while covered in piss of their own making.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
On Feb 15, 2010, at 6:41 AM, nadarrombus wrote: > patanjali is the creator of the real siddhi program, patanjali golden dome, > not maharishi golden dome... krishna is the creator of transcendental > meditation, the song of god-gita not the song of maharishi. maharishi is the > middle man and as it is known among the wise to get the real deal you need to > eliminate the middle man...you don't seem to have decent critical thinking > skills, reading skills or the desire to understand truth which is standard > tmo, -the middle man sold you down the river That's our Little Willy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
patanjai wrote the sutras read them, they explain the whole universe where it all comes from and goes, easy concise- to the point practical and of course beyond the average human being. why -cause it feels to good to give up being ignorant. the perks, being more right than others, knowing they will burn in th eternal lake of guru devs fire for not following maharishi. its just to darn fun... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nadarrombus" wrote: > > patanjali is the creator of the real siddhi program, patanjali golden dome, > not maharishi golden dome... krishna is the creator of transcendental > meditation, the song of god-gita not the song of maharishi. maharishi is the > middle man and as it is known among the wise to get the real deal you need to > eliminate the middle man...you don't seem to have decent critical thinking > skills, reading skills or the desire to understand truth which is standard > tmo, -the middle man sold you down the river > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > > > bija mantras come from... > > > > > > nadarrombus: > > > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > > > which is used... > > > > > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly > > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. > > > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. > > > > > > > > > maharishi translated and made commentaries > > > changing the sanskrit to english according > > > to his preference > > > > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > > word translations and they are near the same. > > > > > > > > There are some question that are not answered in > > > > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > > > > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > > > > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > > > > > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > > > > literature in english... > > > > > > > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > > > > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > > > > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > > > > repeated in English. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
patanjali is the creator of the real siddhi program, patanjali golden dome, not maharishi golden dome... krishna is the creator of transcendental meditation, the song of god-gita not the song of maharishi. maharishi is the middle man and as it is known among the wise to get the real deal you need to eliminate the middle man...you don't seem to have decent critical thinking skills, reading skills or the desire to understand truth which is standard tmo, -the middle man sold you down the river --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > > bija mantras come from... > > > > nadarrombus: > > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > > which is used... > > > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not > state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly > speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned > in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. > > So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. > > > > > maharishi translated and made commentaries > > changing the sanskrit to english according > > to his preference > > > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem > to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's > translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for > word translations and they are near the same. > > > > > There are some question that are not answered in > > > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > > > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > > > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > > > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > > > literature in english... > > > > > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > > > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > > > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > > > repeated in English. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" wrote: > > There is a presumption in TM that one needs a mantra in order > to meditate, that a word (meaningless or otherwise) is needed > to be repeated in order to adjust the mind towards transcending. > I propose that the mantra is not only not necessary, but that > its function is other than its stated purpose. Absolutely. The TM mantra is the spiritual counterpart to Dumbo's feather. Dumbo could always fly; he just needed a meaningless prop and a good sales spiel before he could realize it. Meditation -- which is essentially nothing more (nor less) than the stopping of thought -- is nothing more (nor less) than the practice of shifting one's focus. The silence -- the absence of thought -- is always there; nothing needs to be done to "achieve" it but to put one's focus there. But some have so little ability *to* focus that they need to be trained to focus on something *else* for a while. The purpose of this, IMO, is to reveal to them that they actually have the *ability* to shift focus. Once that possibility has been established experientially, the silence is revealed as having always already been present. Some, having realized this, realize also that the "magic mantra" was no more magical than Dumbo's "magic feather," and lose their attachment to it. Others cling to the notion of the magic mantra even more tightly. The former are called "meditators." The latter are called suckers. Examine your beliefs about mantras; they reveal what group you're in. Just my opinion...
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
There is a presumption in TM that one needs a mantra in order to meditate, that a word (meaningless or otherwise) is needed to be repeated in order to adjust the mind towards transcending. I propose that the mantra is not only not necessary, but that its function is other than its stated purpose. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > bija mantras come from." > > > > Premanand: > > It appears that the prime use of a bija > > mantra is to invoke a particular 'god' or > > 'goddess'... > > > According to Swami Sivananda Radha, the oldest > and most enduring form of mantric identification > is the process called 'bhutasuddhi', or the > purification of the elements, an almost universal > use of mantra by man since antiquity up to and > including modern people. > > "This mantric rite is almost obligatory on every > person the world over, and is actually a > step-by-step merger with the subtle elementary > sources of earth, light, sight, touch, smell, > taste, and cognition of what we humans call > Home and Hearth..." > > Swami Ageananda, an authority on the Tantric > Tradition, states that the mono-syllabel 'OM' > isn't mentioned in the Rig Veda. > > Works cited: > > 'Mantras' > By Swami Sivananda Radha > Timeless Books, 1994 > p. 198 > > 'The Tantric Tradition' > By Swami Ageananda Bharati > Rider, 1965 > p. 111 > > Read more: > > From: Willytex > Subject: Mantra v. 10.2 > Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental > Date: May 7, 2002 > http://tinyurl.com/yeehb93 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
> > "Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > bija mantras come from." > > Premanand: > It appears that the prime use of a bija > mantra is to invoke a particular 'god' or > 'goddess'... > According to Swami Sivananda Radha, the oldest and most enduring form of mantric identification is the process called 'bhutasuddhi', or the purification of the elements, an almost universal use of mantra by man since antiquity up to and including modern people. "This mantric rite is almost obligatory on every person the world over, and is actually a step-by-step merger with the subtle elementary sources of earth, light, sight, touch, smell, taste, and cognition of what we humans call Home and Hearth..." Swami Ageananda, an authority on the Tantric Tradition, states that the mono-syllabel 'OM' isn't mentioned in the Rig Veda. Works cited: 'Mantras' By Swami Sivananda Radha Timeless Books, 1994 p. 198 'The Tantric Tradition' By Swami Ageananda Bharati Rider, 1965 p. 111 Read more: From: Willytex Subject: Mantra v. 10.2 Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: May 7, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/yeehb93
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
> > Patanjali doesn't say anything about the > > 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the > > bija mantras come from... > > nadarrombus: > patanjali states the bija om is the mantra > which is used... > Patanjali mentions the 'pranava', but does not state that it is 'om'. AUM is not, stictly speaking, a 'bija' mantra. AUM isn't mentioned in the Yoga Sutras nor in the Rig Veda. So, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the 'TM' bija mantras and where they came from. > maharishi translated and made commentaries > changing the sanskrit to english according > to his preference > Vernon Katz made the translation and they seem to be pretty standard. I've compared Katz's translation with Swami Prabhupada's word for word translations and they are near the same. > > There are some question that are not answered in > > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > > literature in english... > > > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > > repeated in English. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
patanjali states the bija om is the mantra which is used, maharishi contradicts this - om is dangerous to him but patanjali and the whole veda claim it is wonderful. patanlali gave answers maharishi tinkered for profit. om, it is king of bija's specifically for enlightenment-for liberation. maharishi fabricated his knowledge, patanjali gave the real tm siddhi program - maharishi's system doesn't work because it doesn't use om. om repels demonic, ie. selfish energy, om is beyond the bija's of devas- which are subject to selfishness and will attempt to prevent humans from liberation as you will stop feeding them with your attention during program- yagya's etc... maharishi thrived on that selfish ego energy of fame and status so... there are other reasons such as charging money and lying to students which the vedas claim ruin the effectiveness of yoga techniques as well maharishi translated and made commentaries changing the sanskrit to english according to his preference- not according to rules like etymology, grammar, -the accepted usage... just only he knew the subtle real meanings behind the text, ya right... vernon katz, of course a non-objective movement member under maharishi's control... juan mascero and others have done translations of gita and vedic literature and they have way deeper more universal conclusions and straight translations, they weren't ambitious hindus they were language scientists and social scientists, not reborn-gospel hindus... maharishi's yoga flying sutra doesn't work, you don't read it either... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > nadarrombus: > > patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi > > program... > > > There are some question that are not answered in > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > literature in english... > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > repeated in English. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
"Patanjali doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the bija mantras come from." It appears that the prime use of a bija mantra is to invoke a particular 'god' or 'goddess'. In fact it is said that Guru Dev would not give out a mantra without knowing of the devotee's preference for a particular god. Seems to me that the process of 'transcendence' is not dependent on the use of a mantra but upon the abandonment of thought. I suspect that many successfully 'transcend' without ever getting initiated, just sitting still and letting go of thought can do it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > nadarrombus: > > patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi > > program... > > > There are some question that are not answered in > Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali > doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used > in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > > > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > > literature in english... > > > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated > the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's > TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is > repeated in English. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi program
nadarrombus: > patanjali yoga sutras answer all questions on siddhi > program... > There are some question that are not answered in Patanjalis' Yoga Sutra. For example, Patanjali doesn't say anything about the 'bija mantras' used in TM, and where the bija mantras come from. > maharishi didn't want tm people to read the vedic > literature in english... > The Maharishi, with help from Vernon Katz, translated the Bhagavad Gita into English. In the Maharishi's TM-Sidhi Program, Patanjali's 'flying sutra' is repeated in English.
