[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote: I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the divine through his vedic background. What Vedic background? Probably the one called Rig Vedyou know, the oldest transmitted record? Remember?the one that is orated in Sanskrit, and as the oldest record of such. Yoga Sutras are also orated in Sanskrit. You know...the one that talks about yogis and yoga. Remember that one?...The Rig Ved. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)
Richard, I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the divine through his vedic background. He was confirming and validating some of the techniques to realize the Self. Based on Iyengar's translation of the Yoga Sutras, I came to a conclusion that each sutra can be analyzed and dissected in many ways based on the various traditions of vedic knowledge. Iyengar's translation has given me the impression that the path of yoga is very austere and time consuming. On the other hand, MMY's explanation of the Yoga Sutras makes the path of yoga appear easy and accessible. Regards, John R. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of the divine. Did Patanjali make any such speculations? Which brings us to the final question: what is reality? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138751
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)
On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote: I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the divine through his vedic background. What Vedic background?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)
John wrote: In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of the divine. Did Patanjali make any such speculations? Which brings us to the final question: what is reality? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138751
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (For Richard and all)
Richard, In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of the divine. But, as humans, we do not have the same capacity to understand the mystery of creation (or even before it) as the divine. I find Thomas Merton's words to be practical when he said that God is infinite and at the same time He or She is NOT. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya due to the effects of the gunas. The point I was trying to make, John, is that if Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion - a result of Maya, thus not real. If God is an illusion and not real, then there is no Transcendental Person in the absolute sense. You must admit that this is a significant conundrum and probably the reason why all the Upanishadic commentators ascribed to either dualism, quasi-dulaism, or qualified dualsism - Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallaba, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya, instead of adwaita. While all these acharyas were transcendentalists, they did not agree with Shankara concerning the Absolute nature of the Purusha. In fact, as pointed out by Vaj, the notion that Brahman is an unmanifest and impersonal Absolute without attributes is almost pure Middle Way Buddhism (Madyamika). It is very difficult to relate on a personal level to a non-person and at the same time call that person God, who is obviously a Person, by definition, according to the Upanishads.
