Patanjali: A YOGA CULT REJOINDER

[Guest guest]

Article suggests that perhaps Patanjali himself

saw fit to add say, 15 verses to the sutras to

appease moral, political, or social currents. Vipassana

is the key. Asana and Pranayama are perverted into

therapuetics and disease curing practices. Patanjali's

tretise, similarly to Vipassana have been done great

diservice alike.<br><br>The clouds will part for the

devoted yogin once one experiences the truth through

Vipassana.<br><br>Hmmmm....I'll take him on one point.<br><br>Well the author to

the article does admit that he cannot perform the

sort of historical research to prove that 15 aphorisms

are not belonging.<br><br>Amoung those terse

aphorisisms, painstaking care was taken to make each word

necessary. It was said that to take just one superfluous

word away, would have created such joy to the scholor.

<br><br>Which aphorisms are to appease the taste of the times?

Are they the ones that differ from main tenants of

Vipassana scripture? <br><br>I have limited understanding

of Buddhism from which Vipassana owes itself to. I

recognize it as a great tradition with spiritually

illumined masters. Am I correct in my understanding that

the Buddhist princle of nothingness is contrary to

the basic principle of a soul as described in the

yoga sutras, which states is pure and untainted? That

Patanjali teaches the void one experiences in deep

absorptioin,is another obstacle towards self realization.

<br><br>Once a yogin said "and when you take fullness from

fullness you have fullness." <br><br>These distinct

differences are there, perhaps because there is a poverty of

argument in Vipassana person's claim. And also from the

argument of simplicity, the yoga sutras are not a likely

scripture for tampering as they are sankya tradition,

neither affirming or denying deism. And well to suggest

that Patanjali had the desire to appeal to anything

else is well, a real 6th series stretch.<br><br>Is it

maybe the II.29 "yama niyama asana pranayama pratyahara

dharana dhyana samadhayah astau angani" Sutra in which he

would say something was added to appeal more to the

tainted consciousness of Patanjali's audience. What part?

<br><br> Vipassana is a path, but to make the gain towards

depth of experience one must as the Sufi's say, dig for

water in one spot or you will have many holes and no

water.<br><br>Who's shoulders do we stand on to support a rich and

satisfying practice? A mixture of different philosophical

schools? Is the practice I do not enriching on it's own?

Do the asana and pranayama lead to a physical

culture? Am I a spiritual materialist for wanting Samadhi?

Is it a worthy goal in itself to want to experience

completeness, fullness? I want nothing less. I want nothing

less. I inspect my intentions continually, reviewing

self indulgence, non-continence, truthfullness, and on

down the list of yama's and niyama's, the

prerequisites for preparedness for withdrawal, one-pointed

focus, meditation, and samadhi. Are these diagrams in

need of modern adjustment? Or is this the Kali yuga,

where we despise the hard truthes, Sages are just

rhetoreticians, Pattabi Jois is just another teacher turning a

fast buck, enjoying newfound fame, practice is where

you feast your eyes on everybody else and get all hot

and bothered, where Ashtangi yogi's are known for

their behavior in Mysore via the New Yorker. Maybe we

get close to the truth of something and jump out of

the pond to get to something away from the pain we

generate for ourselves. The mirror should stand.

[Guest guest]

>From yoga talk article:<br><br>"No doubt it is

necessary to keep our body healthy but only that is not

sufficient for spiritual attainment. It is true that if we

don't possess a sound health meditation too is not

possible. So we will have to practice asana, pranayama,

etc., along with meditation. "<br><br>He also

challenges that many teachers of yoga push off theories that

God exists, soul existance and it's subsequent

purity, atman, when these are psuedo questions, that we

need an existential start. Please, to quote a fairly

advanced Yogi, who has penetrated through many layers, Mr.

Iyengar, TREE OF YOGA, p.37 <br><br>"I am sometimes asked

whether it is necessary for a yoga practitioner to

believe in God, My reply is very simple: 'If you don't

believe in Godd, do you believe in your own existence?

Are you here or ore you not? Do you believe that you

are existing, or do you believe it is just a dream

that you are living? This very experience of living

wants you to live as a better person than you are. That

is the divine spark of faith. From that, all the

rest will follow.....I hope you understand me when I

say that believing in God is secondary. The fact that

you are existing is primary, is it not? You are a

living example that you are living. And as you are

living, you want to improve."<br><br>I have heard

comment, from a fellow practitioner, that yoga does

nothing to erradicate the deep samskaras residing at the

phychic, level. If practice is present and attentive these

layers may be penetrated and stillness of fluctuations

can be observed. Pranayama and Asana lead to

meditation. Meditation as yoga is practiced in Patanjali

tradition leads to meditative absorption with in the

practice. Seated meditation is advanced technique, some

maturity in Sadhana must be developed beforehand. Watching

the breath alone, in ignorance of body, produces a

schism in the practitioner's mind. To penetrate one's

awareness or consciousness through and through, firmness of

body is most helpful, perhaps necessary if committment

to hatha yoga is to be steady. I see Vipassana as a

disengagement. <br><br>Samskara's are cleansed from the

outermost sheath to deeper layer's.<br><br>Desikachar,

admits that many yoga teachers push off God and Soul

theories. Stateing at the New York conference last year

that --Hindu's can't keep themselves from changing the

yoga sutras to benefit their outlook, in their zeal

they push hinduism. It is his request not even Om be

uttered at his studios before class, as this is pushing.

But who doesn't think it interesting that you can

"self-direct" your practice in vini yoga. Does Desikachar trust

Americans or foreigners with Yoga, or is it watered down,

because he fears the "karmic repurcussions" for sharing

his knowledge with less born capable

individuals.<br><br><br>No doubt many of my friends tell me about the

importance of Vipassana to their practice. At first it will

appear to dovetail with practice. It appears to lend to

dualism.<br><br><br>Maybe if my health were better I could take a ten-day

vipassana, as it is, I rely on the "lesser" method of

Patanjali Yoga.

[Guest guest]

<<Watching the breath alone, in ignorance

of body, produces a schism in the practitioner's

mind....I see Vipassana as a disengagement.>> <br>

<br> Your last two posts were eloquent and thoughtful,

and I hope others on this board can ditch their

wise-ass attitude and follow your example or keep their

mental discharge to themselves.<br><br> However,

watching the breath alone, if done with deep presence is

in itself yoga--union, and cannot happen in

ignorance of the body. If it is "disengaged," it is not

watching the breath through witness consciousness, it is

simply discursive thought; there is a huge

difference.<br> <br>In fact, the vipassana method as taught by SN

Goenka (there are other vipassana methods though he

would vigorously dispute this) is entirely rooted in

cultivating deep body awareness and allowing knots to unwind

simply through incessant and intense though equanimous

observation.<br>Having done several Goenka retreats, I can say it

fostered quantam leaps in my ashtanga practice despite

missing ten consecutive days of practice. Though I no

longer participate in that method, I have the utmost

admiration and respect for those who do. Sitting still and

quiet for ten days straight is far more challenging and

illuminating than any ashtangi can remotely imagine. <br> To

me, what seems to occur over and over on this board

and in other discussions around spiritual paths, is

focus on a particular technique as if it is the

technique itself that is the goal. The technique, whether

vipassana, ashtanga vinyasa, or bhakti, is not the goal and

not the fruit. These, techniques are road maps to the

absolute, or god they are not the thing itself.<br>

Remember the Zen saying that the finger pointing to the

moon (technique) is not the moon (enlightenment). This

understanding saves a lot of needless sniping.<br><br>With

Love<br>PM

[Guest guest]

<<Watching the breath alone, in ignorance

of body, produces a schism in the practitioner's

mind....I see Vipassana as a disengagement.>> <br>

<br> Your last two posts were eloquent and thoughtful,

and I hope others on this board can ditch their

wise-ass attitude and follow your example or keep their

mental discharge to themselves.<br><br> However,

watching the breath alone, if done with deep presence is

in itself yoga--union, and cannot happen in

ignorance of the body. If it is "disengaged," it is not

watching the breath through witness consciousness, it is

simply discursive thought; there is a huge

difference.<br> <br>In fact, the vipassana method as taught by SN

Goenka (there are other vipassana methods though he

would vigorously dispute this) is entirely rooted in

cultivating deep body awareness and allowing knots to unwind

simply through incessant and intense though equanimous

observation.<br>Having done several Goenka retreats, I can say it

fostered quantam leaps in my ashtanga practice despite

missing ten consecutive days of practice. Though I no

longer participate in that method, I have the utmost

admiration and respect for those who do. Sitting still and

quiet for ten days straight is far more challenging and

illuminating than any ashtangi can remotely imagine. <br>

<br>To me, what seems to occur over and over on this

board and in other discussions around spiritual paths,

is focus on a particular technique as if it is the

technique itself that is the goal. The technique, whether

vipassana, ashtanga vinyasa, or bhakti, is not the goal and

not the fruit. These, techniques are road maps to the

absolute, or god they are not the thing itself.<br>

<br>Remember the Zen saying that the finger pointing to the

moon (technique) is not the moon (enlightenment). This

understanding saves a lot of needless sniping.<br><br>With

Love<br>PM

[Guest guest]

Thank you PM for your well considered

response.<br><br>I believe in the great benefit of of these

practices. And more boldly, I believe the yoga sutras to be

divine and pure. <br><br>I also feel a sense of sadness

that Vipassana is the necessary boon to make the

quantum leap in practice. I do employ other techniques to

deepen my practice, so I cannot say that I am a purist

of one technique. And I also consider my practice of

yoga to be a 24/7 commitment, extending to my whole

life (I falter at that a whole lot).<br><br>On

technique-- Perhaps I mistake the forest for the trees. Yoga

practice technique provides the architecture to spiritual

consciousness, (blurry, in fact quite obscure at times.) It

still continues to polish me. My teacher once said that

there is no yoga without the chaffing of the ego. That

Pleasure yoga is Bhogasana not Yogasana. <br><br>There

seems to be a paradox: to practice ahimsa towards

myself, yet is seems pain fosters this spiritual growth.

<br><br>The transparancy the Zen saying speaks of to me, is

that of my consciousness, reminding me of the biblical

scripture from Corinthians 14:12 "Now we see but a poor

reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.

Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as

I am fully known."<br> Yoga technique cleans the

lens of my self seeing so that I may perceive the full

divinity within.

[Guest guest]

<<However, watching the breath alone, if

done with deep presence is in itself yoga--union, and

cannot happen in ignorance of the body. If it is

"disengaged," it is not watching the breath through witness

consciousness, it is simply discursive thought; there is a huge

difference.>><br><br>I've been meditating on the idea of witness

consciousness vs discurtive thought. One is mind process

(discursive thought) vs. __________ (witness consciousness.

I'm a workin' on it.<br><br>So I bought me a book

"THE ART OF LIVING: Vipassana Meditation as taught by

S.N. Goenka" by William Hart. <br><br>I'm enjoying it

already. Thanks again!

[Guest guest]

If you like that book you might also find this

one interesting. It's available from the same people

as Hart's book.<br><br>A Re-appraisal of Patanjali’s

Yoga-Sutras by S. N. Tandon - Rs 80<br> 1995, 142 pages.

Patanjali, the author of Yoga Sutras wrote his scholarly

works a few centuries after the Buddha, and has drawn

heavily from the teachings of the Buddha. An in-depth

study of the similarities and dissimilarities. The book

contains the Yoga Sutra text.

[Guest guest]

GL<br>I'm not sure Goenka's teachings on

Vipassana will answer your question clearly, though again,

I think he's a good teacher. <br><br>Several other

books might answer your question more completely.

Eckhart Tolle "The Power of Now". His language is clear

and precise and he elucidates many Buddhist and

Advaita Vedantic ideas without even referring to those

teachings or their texts--an amazing

accomplishment.<br><br>For a hardcore teaching from the subcontinent(Advaita

Vedanta--similar in many respects to Zen), check out "I Am That"

by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a full on,

uncompromising Jnana Yogi who relentlessly pulls the rug out

from the feet of the reader. It's also good stuff for

those who think the Yoga Sutras are the only teachings

of worth from the great subcontinent.<br>Much

Love,<br>PM