Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: No wonder you're so confused, neither of these are teachers in that tradition. Vaj, don't be so elitist, you do not know all there is to know about the Indian traditions. Your incessant trashing of the Marshy, for no apparent reason, leads me to believe that you're not very informed. That's correct, I don't know everything about Indian traditions, but neither does anyone else. Fortunately I've had good teachers who set me straight on the relative truth of matters. I have little interest in trashing Mahesh Varma the so-called Maharishi, but instead feel it is important, when relevant, to set the historical record straight since members of his Neo-vedic marketing cult seem hellbent on pushing an untrue story, a fiction. You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you post your comments! I read Zen Flesh, Zen Bones years ago after hearing about it from Johnny Gray. Haven't read it since, but I always loved the Ox-herding pictures and their story of Shamatha.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled the pieces of the pre-Vedic teachings in 28 volumes. The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the primary (mukhya) Upanishads. Together with the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it ranks among the oldest Upanishads, dating to the Vedic Brahmana period (probably before mid-first millennium BCE). Most of what is known as Hinduism descends not from the Veda, but from the Agamas. Even the Vaishnavite classic, the Bhagavad-gita, is largely plagiarized directly from the Agamas! Like I said, you seem really confused, but this is not unusual. The idea that Hinduism stems from the Vedas has caused monumental errors in dating. Such errors were further compounded by the many false Vaishnavite teachers that began arriving in the west, esp. since the 60's. Some even claimed to be yogis but taught false doctrines and really just wanted to sell the Vedas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:34 AM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
Vaj wrote:
Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled
the pieces of the pre-Vedic teachings in 28
volumes.
The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the primary (mukhya) Upanishads.
Together with the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana and the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad it ranks among the oldest Upanishads, dating to the Vedic
Brahmana period (probably before mid-first millennium BCE).
Most of what is known as Hinduism descends not from the Veda, but
from
the Agamas. Even the Vaishnavite classic, the Bhagavad-gita, is
largely plagiarized directly from the Agamas!
I wonder what u mean by aagama. In YS, aagama is one of the
three pramaaNa-s:
pratyakSaanumaanaagamaaH (pratyakSa-anumaana+aagamaaH*) pramaaNaani
*aagamaaH is the nominative *plural* of aagama(H), because
here it's the last component of a dvandva-compound of more
than two components (in which case it would be in nominative
*dual...)
Agama mf(%{A})n. coming near , approaching AV. vi , 81 , 2 ; xix , 35
, 3 ; m. (ifc. f. %{A}) arrival , coming , approach R. c. ; origin
Mn. viii , 401 R. c. ; appearance or reappearance MBh. ii , 547 ;
course (of a fluid) , issue (e.g. of blood) Mn. viii , 252 Sus3r. ;
income , lawful acquisition (of property , %{artha} , %{dhana} ,
%{vitta} , %{draviNa}) Mn. MBh. c. ; reading , studying Pat. ;
acquisition of knowledge , science MBh. Ya1jn5. c. ; a traditional
doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines , sacred work ,
Bra1hmana Mn. xii , 105 MBh. c. ; anything handed down and fixed by
tradition (as the reading of a text or a record , title-deed , c.) ;
addition Nir. i , 4 ; a grammatical augment , a meaningless syllable
or letter inserted in any part of the radical word Pra1t. Pa1n2. Comm.
; N. of a rhetorical figure ; (%{am}) n. a Tantra or work inculcating
the mystical worship of S3iva and S3akti.
Agama is what proceeded Veda. In fact at a certain point in the
cross-translation of the huge corpus of pre-Vedic writings, as they
become Brahminized, we see the original word Agama replaced with Veda.
That, along with numerous other exegetical contrivances began the
covert attempt to tie Indian civilization to a mythic Vedic origin.
By the time of the middle ages and the Vaishnavite merchant caste
revival, much of what we have today as our translations were formed
from their older, original forbears and re-translated into the
predominant language of that era, Sanskrit. A parallel in western
civilization would be the attempt to connect western civilization to
the Greeks, while ignoring the indigenous wisdom of the Druids and
others.
In a deeper sense Agama as word has a similar sense as upaniSad or
upadesha in that it means getting close to the source as your basis.
When the Brit's colonized India, one of the first things they did was
ask what is the Hindu's bible? and there was no pat answer. But they
had to find something, so we ended up with what the Vedic Brahmins,
the Big Men on Campus, told them: the Bhagavad-gita and the Vedas.
This suited them perfectly since the cult of Lingam worship and animal
sacrifice they found offensive.
The agamas and tantras, as texts, represent the most ignored part of
Indian gnostic heritage to this very day. Agamas generally give
emphasis to Shiva, while their female counterparts, the Tantras center
around Shakti or Goddess worship.
Upagamas or secondary agamas support the main agamas. These are the
origins of many texts that constitute Ayurveda, Vastu (Sthapatya
veda), etc. that were later Brahminized.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
---The only thing that blanks out is the little ego which takes on the form of the big Ego or God almighty The above is actually half right because it continues to assume there is an experience or a thing called me that becomes something different than what it was before. The ego does blank out, but it is not then replaced with a bigger or cosmic version of itself. The little me does not become a big cosmic Me. This is a good narrative while one is on the path towards Realization because it is the only way the mind can conceptualize Realization. It assume that there will be a different me or a different experience of my self and that this new me will be blissful and all knowing, in-tune-with-the-laws-of-nature, etc. But all those are simply constructs, thoughts of the mind. What happens in the first step of Realization is the me blanks out or, more accurately, the me, either suddenly or gradually, is differentiated from boundaries. Specifically, consciousness (that apperception present in waking state, that feeling of me) separates itself from space-time boundaries; it becomes unlocalized. When this occurs, there is no me any more. What remains are the same thoughts, the same, feelings, the same body of course, but there is no me or localization of consciousness. To say one has become unbounded, absolute, eternal, is misleading because these are qualities of consciousness derived from the mind. Consciousness can not be comprehended by mind. It is utterly, totally, and completely, outside of mind. So you really can't talk about it, your really can't think about it, and you really can't feel it. But there is That, consciousness conscious of consciousness. Time and space are inside it. You are That when that you (I-thought) differentiates from its subtle boundaries of identification. Then what you are is content-less, limitless, utterly free. It makes your hair stand on end and you run around going, oh..oh..oh...oh! I am neither the King nor the village idiot. I am neither before nor after. I am neither eternal nor limited. I am neither outside nor inside. I am neither concrete nor abstract. I am not not and not not not. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Marshy doesn't have much to say about the doctrine of 'illusion' propounded by Shankara. It's obvious that Marshy was more akin to the Lakshsman. That's because the yoga praxis between Kashmere Shivaism and TM practice is almost identical. That's funny, the Trika I'm familiar with isn't anything like TM. Who was your teacher Willy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:Billy wrote: Nor is there any recommendation that Religion is an essential adjunct (which Patanjali apparently did) to TM for rounded progress. Billy - Patanjali didn't have much to say about religions, that's because there were only a few religious practices in Bharatvarsh at the time. Says who? Patanjali lived before the age of the sects (200 B.C.). At that time, there was the Vedic religion, which had almost died out; there were various divisions of Buddhism and Jainism, but there were no major vedantic, bhakti, tantric, or yoga sects. Boy do you sound confused. Yoga predates the Vedic religion and was/is the indigenous spiritual teaching of India. Haven't you seen the Mohenjodharo seal with them yogi on it from the early Bronze Age? In fact, the only mention of religious practice in Patanjali has to do with the doctrine of Ishvara, a kind of 'God of Yogins', but this is mentioned only in passing. Yoga is not a 'religious' practice - there's nothing esoteric about it at all. There's nothing inherently religious about the Ashtanga Yoga of Patanjali - if there was, Patanjali would have mentioned it, would he not? At the time of Patanjali there were six darshanas: only one of these is theistic, and Buddhism, before the Mahayana, was more atheistic than not. So, we can conclude that religious practices, such as the Vedic sacrifice, were deemed not very important by Patanjali, at least for purposes of self realization.No there were/are MANY darshanas, but there are 6 mentioned in the later sat-darshana system. But that doesn't mean there are only 6.In reality there are as many darshanas or ways-of-seeing as there are different people, but most share some similarities so they can be grouped together. So, it would seem that Marshy more closely followed the scheme set out by Patanjali, by NOT emphasizing sectarian religious practices for ordinary TMers. Actually MMY's system bares very little similarity to Patanjali's system. It's sounds like you've been fooled by believing what you were told, without really looking into things experientially. Didn't you read the front page of the FFL website?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Marshy doesn't have much to say about the doctrine of 'illusion' propounded by Shankara. It's obvious that Marshy was more akin to the Lakshsman. That's because the yoga praxis between Kashmere Shivaism and TM practice is almost identical. Vaj wrote: That's funny, the Trika I'm familiar with isn't anything like TM. You're probably only familiar with the esoteric doctrines, but to really understand the Trika system, you need to practice the tantric yoga: 19. Intone a sound audibly, then less and less audible as feeling deepens into this silent harmony. The only problem is that in none of the three sections of the Shiva Sutra of Vasugupta does this verse appear. I'm not sure who taught you TM, but speaking the mantra out loud, audibly, is not part of the practice. You'd better go and get checked Willy. Be honest. You got this from the same place you got those Obama quotes, didn't you? Centering - An excerpt from the Shiva Sutra, translated by Swami by Lakshmanjoo, from the book 'Zen Flesh, Zen Bones' by Paul Reps. http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm Who was your teacher Willy? Marshy and Paul Reps? No wonder you're so confused, neither of these are teachers in that tradition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Yoga predates the Vedic religion... There's no evidence that 'Yoga' predates the Vedic religion. If there was, 'Yoga' would have been mentioned in the Rig Veda in 1500 B.C. What some people think of a 'Yoga' is realy shamanism, but that's not the same as 'Ashtanga Yoga' practice, which came after the advent of Buddhism. It might be more accurate to say that yoga is non-Vedic in origin. It's exclusion from the Rig Veda would not mean that. It probably means the Soma cult were more interested in tripping than spiritual practice. Written records occur relatively late in the Indian historic record, coinciding with the Vaishnavite and merchant class revival of the middle ages when earlier works which were re-written into Sanskrit and often edited, modified and Brahaminized. The earliest traditions are oral and were only written down much later. Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled the pieces of the pre- Vedic teachings in 28 volumes. The Agamas constitute rough Sanskrit translations of these pre-Vedic texts. These are the same Arrivars that the four Brahmins in the Chandogya Upanishad turn to for teachings. According to archaeoastronomical analyses of the Puranas, their teachings start around 5500 BC when Sirius was in the constellation Mrigavacha. Shiva was probably an historic person who lived in the Kingdom of Zhang Zhung, the kingdom surrounding Mt. Kailash which perished due to climatic shifts many centuries ago. His yogic teachings are preserved in the Oral Traditions of Zhang Zhung which are still extant. So we have yogic teachings and methods since at least that time but probably even earlier. According to Eliade, we should not confuse shamanism with the Patanjali Yoga Tradition. Ashtanga or the 'Royal' Yoga of Patanjali (circa 200 B.C.) is relatively modern by Vedic chronology (circa 1500 B.C.). Work cited: 'Yoga: Immortality and Freedom' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press, 1970 The word 'yoga' may appear in the Vedas, but obviously there was no 'Yoga' tradition as described by Patanjali who lived in 200 B.C. The first yogin that we know of in India, in the historical sense, is Shakya the Muni, the historical Buddha. Patanjali's YS is a compilation of earlier traditions Willy. The fourth chapter was a later addition, inspired by Buddhism. He didn't invent yoga!
