--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
You think
On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
tradition in his willingness to leave the yamas
and niyamas of Patanjali out of his teachings and
techniques, it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis
reavismarek@ wrote:
snip
Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
tradition in his willingness to leave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You must have missed the previous conversations on how
effortlessness is defined in the Patanjali system. If there is
support (Skt.: Alambana), there is effort.
MMY does not claim that TM does not take effort per-se, he
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all, Maharishi is a kshatriya and you know those ksatriyas
can't practice ahimsa and keep their dharma too.
Of course they can, the world of Relativity contains NO absolutes, the
dharma of protecting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When they came out of that momentarily sleep-like state and felt more
rested he called it samadhi.
I don't think he ever called it Samadhi!! He has suggested however it
was Pure Consciousness (albeit the same), some day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think God
is stupid?
Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is
bliss, you do the math.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:34 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis
reavismarek@ wrote:
snip
Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
tradition in his willingness to leave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
You think God
is stupid?
Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is
bliss, you do the math.
Well, to be stupid is good for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
You think God
is stupid?
Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing
tradition in his willingness to leave the yamas
and niyamas of Patanjali out of his teachings and
techniques, it was that revolutionary aspect of his
teaching
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given his very different understanding, of course
MMY would not have taught mastery of the yamas
and niyamas as a prerequisite to samadhi, even to
the most religiously devoted Hindu practitioners;
it would have been counterproductive, in his view.
He
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given his very different understanding, of course
MMY would not have taught mastery of the yamas
and niyamas as a prerequisite to samadhi, even to
the most religiously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Poor Arjuna. He was a warrior and was instructed by Lord Krishna to
follow his dharma and fight. That means he could not follow
Patanjali's practice of non-harming (ahimsa)
snip
That is correct! The law of Dharma in this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course the bhagavad-gita is just a hodgepodge of stolen goods,
over half of it's verses come from the parameshvara agama, a Shaivite
text which pre-dates the Vaishnavite merchant class revival.
And it really doesn't
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MMY took the essential teachings of the Sanatana Dharma of India
(eternal Religion of the Vedas)and made them into a science.
In order to do this he had to sever certain parts of Patanjali's
teachings
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west. Yoga
is so empirical in nature and practice and most religions promulgate
most, if not
---Thanks, I agree with the assessment (below). In retrospect, MMY
failed at both the science aspect and the religion/spirituality
aspect. By siding with the religious/spiritual aspect, fewer people
may have initially started TM, but we would be left with a core group
of dedicated,
On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west. Yoga
is so empirical in nature and practice and most religions promulgate
most, if not all, of the elements contained in
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@
wrote:
This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west.
TM is actually deriving its principles from Patanjali and the B.
Gita. IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga. However, the B Gita is revealing the practical aspects or
application of yoga. In effect, yoga essentially is NOT for the
timid. There comes a time when a
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
This (above) is a good capsule of what Maharishi's original
intentions were, I feel, when he started teaching in the west.
Yoga
is so empirical in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Thanks, I agree with the assessment (below). In retrospect, MMY
failed at both the science aspect and the religion/spirituality
aspect. By siding with the religious/spiritual aspect, fewer people
may have
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:30 PM, BillyG. wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't see how anyone could take perverting a tradition which works
as practical. The mechanics of why the prerequisites work are well
known to real yogis...and they keep
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga.
Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what it is: it's actually
the sparsest of sketches. In order to actually learn what it's
referring to, one needs to use quite a few other
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't see how anyone could take perverting a tradition which works
as practical. The mechanics of why the prerequisites work are well
known to real yogis...and they keep creating real samadhic absorptions.
If we
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's upside is that it was easily disseminated and easy to do, so
millions took up the practice--there has to be some positive effect
from that (even, possibly, if most quit), and for that we should all
be grateful to
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
In your opinion (and others), that was ultimately a bad decision, but
I feel that Maharishi's initial impulse was sincere and came from
heartfelt enthusiasm that what he was doing was following the
inspiration he received from Guru Dev.
I used
Dialogue below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
In your opinion (and others), that was ultimately a bad decision, but
I feel that Maharishi's initial impulse was sincere and came from
heartfelt
On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:33 PM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga.
Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what it is: it's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:23 PM, John wrote:
IMHO, Patanjali's yoga sutras are detailing the science of
yoga.
Unfortunately, that's the exact opposite of what it is: it's
actually
the sparsest of sketches. In order
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is why mastery of the Yama and Niyama limbs are not really
requirements for mastery of the inner limbs, or sanyama, but are
rather valuable adjuncts.
This is correct: It is wrong to assume that unless the senses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Vaj, first of all, though Maharishi was snubbing tradition in his
willingness to leave the yamas and niyamas of Patanjali out of his
teachings and techniques, it was that revolutionary aspect of his
teaching that
33 matches
Mail list logo
