Jnâna yoga
omjaroo
descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation:
* Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between
what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything
else in the universe.)
* Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to
"detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
* Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind),
Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that
are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana
(perfect concentration).
* Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal
limitations.
Anyone care to talk about this?
Jared
o
^
jaiguru
to still the mind through the prana is yoga.
NBennett
is this way of life possible while still living in this society? Or is
this something for people like monks and nuns who give up their lives
to follow their beliefs?
i wonder how one continues to work, earn a living, support a family,
have relationships, recreation, etc. how could someone have a job to
make the money to pay for heating, food, clothes, or maintain
relationships - family or friends - while judging everything as real
or unreal and doing only activities which are duties. duties to who?
nancy
omjaroo wrote:
> This is from wikipedia. One of the most succinct and accurate
> descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
>
> Jn�na yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation:
jaiguru
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will not have to renounce the worldly life; you won't have to go
into the forest;
wherever you are, you still can progress on the spiritual path and be
in the world of bliss! The suffering is only because of sense of 'me'
and 'mine'.
omjaroo
> hi jared
> is this way of life possible while still living in this society? Or is
> this something for people like monks and nuns who give up their lives
> to follow their beliefs?
> i wonder how one continues to work, earn a living, support a family,
> have relationships, recreation, etc. how could someone have a job to
> make the money to pay for heating, food, clothes, or maintain
> relationships - family or friends - while judging everything as real
> or unreal and doing only activities which are duties. duties to who?
nancy
Thanks for the response and great questions. Seems like every time I
read something you write I have to smile. You (and Richard :-) are
moving so far, so fast, it is a joy to behold...
Wisely you put forward the question:
>Is this way of life possible while still living in this society?
Sure it is. No monk'ness or nun'ness required :-) In fact you will
read time and again from the masters that it is a "higher" and more
substantial form of yoga, to practice in the real world. That those
who are willing to strive to integrate yoga in there real (dutiful)
lives are practicing a superior form, even more so than those who
retreat to the mountain or forest.
When trying to understand the science of yoga and it functions and
effects, it is important not to confuse religious, cultural,
linguistic, historical and other regional attributes with the art and
science itself. Yoga is universal. Obviously it is going to be
practiced in different context, language and style in the West then it
is in the East. Many things eastern are couched in "religious" ideas
and are communicated in poetic terms. That's their history and
development. Westerners tend to be business like, practical minded and
pragmatic (even while being religious). This is our history and
development.
We wouldn't sit down to an Ethiopian meal and proclaim, "what am I
suppose to do with that? I've never seen that, I can't understand and
cook that. It's incomprehensible to me, it must only be for Ethiopians
or people who devote their lives to it." No, hopefully we just eat, we
enjoy and we grow from the sustenance and revel in the company of
those who have fed us. The truth is, while having a very different
look, smell and flavor, it is none the less food. For those of us who
can't get past the appearance of things and discern their real
meaning, we face a life of fear, unhappiness and inevitable death, all
devoid of joy and a sense of belonging and oneness (yoga).
Likewise in a jnani-like manner you inquired :-)
>i wonder how one continues to work, earn a living, support a family,
>have relationships, recreation, etc. how could someone have a job to
>make the money to pay for heating, food, clothes, or maintain
>relationships - family or friends -
>and doing only activities which are duties.
These all sound like duties to me. Seems you may be most of the way
there already :-)
>while judging everything as real or unreal
Why not? We judge things constantly. Unfortunately for most of us we
judge things inaccurately. Jnana is the yoga which concerns itself
with "discriminating" or separating truth from fiction or what is real
from what is not. Could this be anything but a good thing? Especially
in a work a day world. Wouldn't you rather be making decisions and
taking actions on information which is true or real, than on
information that is not. No matter how well reasoned and responsible a
decision we make or action we take, its going to come out bad if its
based on bad information. So I think learning to tell what's true from
what's false has very practical and beneficial use in any and every
aspect of our lives.
You have learned over the course of your yoga study / practice that
you can do things you thought unlikely or impossible. Your eyes (inner
and outer) have been opened to truths perhaps you were not aware of
and so your heart / mind continues to open even greater
possibilities . This is how one aspect of yoga (hatha - physical)
intertwines or overlaps another aspect of yoga (jnana - knowledge). As
you learn more about the "different" types of yoga you will see they
all overlap and are at their base, all the same (yoga - unity).
I get from your questions and comments you've made before that it
would be helpful if some set down just how a western who lives in the
real world goes about practicing real yoga. There is substantial
material covering hatha yoga which has come all the way to commercial.
Raja has been adapted for the west by maharishi and others and bhakti
by the Self Realization Fellowship and some other religious
organizations. Jnana and karma are not well understood or supported on
any scale as they are such individual disciplines. I suggest the
writings of Richard Hittleman, Yogananda, Vivekananda. There are other
western equivalents like Emerson, Ernest Holms and perhaps the very
best in practical day to day applications, Emmet Fox.
Jared
o
^
NBennett
read "discrimination- the ability to differentiate between what is
real/ETERNAL" as real/INTERNAL, kinda glossed over the next part
thinking all the rest was unreal/external.
it makes a lot more sense when i actually read every word, and your
explanation, as always, helped. for me, to implement this, the key is
to focus on trying or working towards, rather than plop it into my
life as a fait acomplit and try to fit my life in around it.
just like a carpenter who measures twice, cuts once, i should read
twice, answer once.
thanks jared
nancy
NBennett
path and progressing, not putting myself unprepared at the end goal.
nancy
omjaroo
Thanks for your clarification.
> the key is to focus on trying or working towards, rather than plop it into my
> life as a fait acomplit and try to fit my life in around it.
In recovery circles its referred to as "striving for progress not
perfection."
On the subject of jnana, I prefer not to use the eastern words for
yoga ideas as it makes them sound so far off, unattainable and just
plain "fru fru, laa la, naa na." On the other hand if one speaks in
simple, direct English terms about yoga, then it doesn't sound like,
well, yoga :-)
The reason I choose to post this list of jnana concepts, is that it
contained, more than usual, relatively clear English description along
with the Sanskrit term. Something you hear a lot when studying the
roots and meaning of yoga is "there is no direct translation for so
and so word." And this is right, but there is nothing that is true
which can not be communicated or understood in any language.
So in hopes of being helpful, here is my attempt to further translate
the translation :-)
* Viveka - Discrimination:
The willingness and the active attempt to discern what is real from
what is not, truth from fiction, correct from incorrect, accurate from
inaccurate, truth from lies, presentation from content, appearance
from reality, right from wrong. See a pattern here :-)
* Vairagya - Dispassion:
Detachment or equanimity. When one knows or strives to know what is
true, there is a real and natural tendency to get less intensely
excited about things, good or bad. Intense feelings (passion) of
excitement, happiness, sadness, fear, love, etc are generated by fear
and desire and other forms of expectation and fantasy. When ones
awareness is grounded in reality, passion falls away and is replaced
by knowing acceptance and by gentler and more subtle emotional cues
and reactions.
* Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues:
Tranquility (control of the mind)
Is your body, which includes your mind, on "automatic," reacting to
environmental influence, without control or willful direction from
"you" the person which exists beyond its limited physicalness. Like a
car, racing out of control, constantly bumping into things, running
over others, wreaking harm and destruction in ways big and small? Do
we control our vehicle or does it control us?
Dama (control of the senses)
The senses are mechanisms designed to provide us feedback or
information about our internal and external environment. These senses
become perverted (and useless) when we concentrate on intensifying
pleasurable feedback and discouraging painful or uncomfortable
feedback. Information is information; no good or bad just feedback.
Can you imagine a computer judgeing the information we placed in it as
"good" or "bad?" The thing would be useless :-)
Uparati (renunciation of activities that are not duties)
This is really just dropping those activities and things we do for
"distraction." Those things we do to keep us ignorant, unaware and in
denial of reality. People often think of drugs, alcohol, sex, eating,
reading, films and the many things we do to "enjoy" ourselves. These
things can be a distraction. They can also be something we need to do,
for process, for survival and for other reasons. Either our actions
support finding and knowing what is true or they keep us from this
knowing. Duties are things we do because we need to do them and we are
responsible to do them. But what some consider duties are very often
used to "distract" us and keep us from knowing and accepting what is
true. Work, family, yoga and all kinds of responsibilities can be used
to distract. We've all known people who keep a house so clean it takes
all their time and energy and it really seems like they are trying
hard to avoid something else in their lives. It all depends on why you
do what you do. What is it's purpose for you. Not what does the thing
itself mean. Nothing has any meaning that we don't give to it. Hence
my saying, "it's never the thing its self, only the meaning we bring
to it."
Titiksha (endurance)
Stick-to-it-ness. Staying the course. Perseverance. Never giving up.
Personally, I've never figured out a way to "give up." Sometimes I'd
like to but I have yet to find a book on the subject. Not to be
confused with "surrendering" which is not at all the same as giving
up. Surrendering is along the lines of acceptance and giving up, just
plain stopping.
Shraddha (faith)
Profound and absolute knowing. Beyond, believing, hoping, wanting,
wishing or any of the many things that pass for religiousness or
faith. When you really know what is true and what is not, there is a
"knowing" which transcends all question or doubt. No one and no thing
can cause you to "unknow" a thing you know. This is faith. Simple,
powerful, loving.
Samadhana
(perfect concentration)
One pointedness. Focus. Being in awareness of here and now. Non-
distractedness.
* Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal
limitations.
What this means is, once you know or even suspect, who and what you
are, there is a unshakable feeling or motivation to come "home" to
yourself. To be and act and feel and think as who you are. On the
everyday material plane, on the cosmic plane, on any plane at all.
Being freely and uninterruptedly who you are is the point of our
existence and what we're here to learn.
And who are we? We are Love, Life, Truth, Intelligence, Soul,
Principle and Spirit. And how do we live (in a practical way) with who
we are? I suggest reading Emmet Fox's Essay, "The Seven Main Aspects
of God" from the book, "Alter Your Life" and Yogananda's book, "Man's
Eternal Quest."
Jared
o
^
J.D. Campbell
thought is obgectine or subgective..... subgetive thought is obgectively
at self (self-ish)_ and below that is beauty thru chemistry supporting
it all......an ILLUSION...atoms the suns over and ober they recombine
more and more atoms to live in the mind of god the dream..simple to
complex..If there is ABS:OLUTE:IY EVERYTHING THERE MUST BE ABSOLUTE:LY
NOTHIING ,,,,between/2 cognize meditate potentials and
fields....Black..zero vacum that was all white we see it change now
limited......sound, heat light fields potentials\............idc
illusion.
HB...@hotmail.com
> hi jared
> is this way of life possible while still living in this society? Or is
> this something for people like monks and nuns who give up their lives
> to follow their beliefs?
Not to worry,
For anyone who is practicing a balanced yoga, as more than mere
physical fitness regimin, all those qualities,attributes mentioned
will develop, blossom on their own. They are not anything specific to
Jnana Yoga.
> i wonder how one continues to work, earn a living, support a family,
> have relationships, recreation, etc. how could someone have a job to
> make the money to pay for heating, food, clothes, or maintain
> relationships - family or friends - while judging everything as real
> or unreal and doing only activities which are duties. duties to who?
>
> nancy
>
>
>
> omjaroo wrote:
> > This is from wikipedia. One of the most succinct and accurate
> > descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
>
> > Jn�na yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation:
>
> > * Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between
> > what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything
> > else in the universe.)
> > * Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to
> > "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
> > * Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind),
> > Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that
> > are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana
> > (perfect concentration).
> > * Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal
> > limitations.
>
> > Anyone care to talk about this?
>
> > Jared
> > o
HB...@hotmail.com
> This is from wikipedia. One of the most succinct and accurate
> descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
>
> Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation:
>
> * Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between
> what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything
> else in the universe.)
I prefer a Tantric approach,
sarvam hyetad brahmā - Mandukya Upanishad, verse-2
roughly translates as" Surely all this is Brahma"
or, sarvam brahmamayam jagat, roughly "Surely this entire universe is
Brahma"
Then the work is commitment to ideation and behaving accordingly.
> * Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to
> "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
"after practice one should be able to, (paraphrase) have dispassion,
vairagya.
So I wonder what is being practiced?
> * Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind),
> Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that
> are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana
> (perfect concentration).
sounds a lot like yama/niyama of raja yoga, except for Samadhana,
which could be construed as dharana flowering into dhyana.
> * Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal
> limitations.
>
> Anyone care to talk about this?
So where is Bhakti in all this?
Those Jnani's don't know much if they discount Bhakti.
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
omjaroo
J.D.
Good to hear from you... And I agree :-)
Jared
o
^
omjaroo
>I prefer a Tantric approach
>So where is Bhakti in all this?
Jnana, Truth
Karma, Action
Bhakti, Love
Hatha, Body
Raja, Mind
Tantra, Being
Kundalini, Energy
Just like ice cream. Pick any flavor you like or try a new one.
They're all good :-)
Jared
o
^
HB...@hotmail.com
Yes Jared, I am quite aware that they are all good, (probably that is
why I prefer Tantra, since it includes everything you've listed,
although your "translations" seem overly simplistic to the point of
being misleading.)
but it seems that your Jnanis are not,
as per the opening line from the article you cited:
"Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation"
and nowhere is any mention made of anything resembling Bhakti,
and so my question, "Where is the Bhakti in all this?"
(or is the article flawed, incomplete.) Or does "Jnana" yoga not
recognise Bhakti as a means to salvation?
It was a sincere question. I thought perhaps that with your penchant
for Jnana, you might be able to supply a reasonable answer.
> Jared
> o
> ^
Richard Corfield
>
> So where is Bhakti in all this?
> Those Jnani's don't know much if they discount Bhakti.
>
The quotes from the Upanishads were interesting. I think I ought to read
more of them.
Bhakti seems an effective solution for many, but what happens if you
direct it the wrong way, to something not so wholesome, or if in your
devotion you get the wrong idea and become, say, an ultra extreme
hell-and-damnation evangelist? Maybe that isn't true Bhakti, as
presumably true Bhakti feeling love and devotion would result in those
tendencies coming out in the practitioner.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
omjaroo
> > Just like ice cream. Pick any flavor you like or try a new one.
> > They're all good :-)
>
> Yes Jared, I am quite aware that they are all good, (probably that is
> why I prefer Tantra, since it includes everything you've listed,
Please remember that even though I am personally responding to you,
everything I write is done so in the hopes that others who wish to
might benefit from the ideas presented and/or join in the discussion.
Of course you are correct, each form of yoga contains everything
listed and can be used to develop all these attributes if properly
understood and practiced.
> although your "translations" seem overly simplistic to the point of
> being misleading.)
I'm not sure which translations you are referring to. The "one word"
translations or the "further translation" of the translations,
mentioned in an earlier part of this thread. I'd be interested to know
what, how and why, something I've said is misleading.
> but it seems that your Jnanis are not,
> as per the opening line from the article you cited:
> "Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> and nowhere is any mention made of anything resembling Bhakti,
> and so my question, "Where is the Bhakti in all this?"
> (or is the article flawed, incomplete.)
I agree with you the article is most certainly flawed. I took the
quotes, out of context, from wikipedia. I posted them because they
made a bit of sense in English and I thought they would be a good
springboard for discussion.
I don't really know what the sanskrit terms mean, I don't know if the
concepts conveyed actually correspond to the sankrit accurately
(yogicly or linguistically) and I don't agree with idea that there
even is such a thing as salvation or with the conclusions presented. I
don't have to know these "details" to practice jnana or any other form
of yoga. Just as a hatha yogi in the west doesn't have to know
sanskrit to practice asana.
I am very much in line with you that they seem to have missed bhakti
altogether. The post wasn't meant to be an edict or pronouncement of
ultimate yogic wisdom, it was intended to introduce some jnanic ideas
and encourage discussion about how they might be relevant to a
realistic western yoga practice.
> Or does "Jnana" yoga not
> recognise Bhakti as a means to salvation?
> It was a sincere question. I thought perhaps that with your penchant
> for Jnana, you might be able to supply a reasonable answer.
But to address your question which I had originally interpreted as a
statement (sorry), Jnana does in fact recognize Bhakti as path to
enlightenment. After all a Jnani would have to dismiss a really big
chunk of truth and reality not to :-)
BTW, as I am certain you are aware, there are many who believe bhakti
to be the fastest, easiest and most accessible of all the yogic paths.
And from a jnanic point of view this makes perfect sense. Because once
someone "knows" or even "suspects" the Truth or is Self-realized, then
there's nothing left "to do" but let go and celebrate (worship :-)
Jared
o
^
HB...@hotmail.com
<Richard.Corfi...@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:
> On 2008-05-18, HB...@hotmail.com <HB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So where is Bhakti in all this?
> > Those Jnani's don't know much if they discount Bhakti.
>
> The quotes from the Upanishads were interesting. I think I ought to read
> more of them.
>
> Bhakti seems an effective solution for many, but what happens if you
> direct it the wrong way, to something not so wholesome, or if in your
> devotion you get the wrong idea and become, say, an ultra extreme
> hell-and-damnation evangelist?
I agree that such would be "not so wholesome." There is something
viscious about such fundamentalist outlooks in whatever religious
guise they are dressed, something narrow minded, even mean spirited. A
yogic sadhana would foster development in quite the opposite
direction. But mistaqkes can be made in Bhakti yoga, same as in any
yoga. One has to keep one's wits about them.
Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
>BTW, as I am certain you are aware, there are many who believe bhakti
>to be the fastest, easiest and most accessible of all the yogic paths.
Those would perhaps be the "Hare Krishnas". An adorable bunch, but a
bit given to being bossed around by their leaders, at least in my
opinion. Also, at least here in Sweden, there regularly pops up
mystical movements within Christianity, claiming that all you really
need is to really, really love Jesus/God with all your heart. And I'm
sure they are right, both the Krishna and the Jesus devotees.
Love is a great force. And if we love, shouldn't we love most the most
pure and holy, God Himself? It's perfectly logical I agree with you
on that. But I still stick to Hatha Yoga (which really IS Raja Yoga,
or one might even say that Raja Yoga is a part of Hatha Yoga, the
spiritual part) even knowing that total dedication to God might
liberate me much quicker or more conveniently. I guess I just don't
like the idea of theocracy that all such movements eventually try to
implement if given half a chance. It looks like in humans the drive
for power is about as strong as the drive for love.
Anyway, earlier in this thread, Hbkta mentioned Tantra. Hbkta, I've
always associated tantrism with sex, "dual cultivation" and all that
jazz. So I haven't thought it was very serious. It seems to go against
the grain of the rest of yoga, where we try to learn to get over
attachments. In the seventies I read a book where two yogis, a man and
a woman, were depicted having sex in different asana-like positions,
and I believe the book was called Tantra Yoga or something like that
(I shouldn't think there's an English translation, the pictures were
far too explicit for the American or the English taste/law). To me, it
seemed partly like a trick to sell hardcore porn in a socially
acceptable way, but partly, the authors also seemed quite serious
about this sex/tantra thing. I considered buying the book, but
eventually decided against it, instead staying with those asanas I
knew, and having sex in the common way. At the time I didn't know any
women who were both into yoga and into having sex with me. (I still
don't, but I've since found that even a non-yogi can appreciate some
of those tantric positions, so the reading was not a total waste of
time. But I wouldn't call it yoga.)
But now I learn that Hbkta, whose opinions I have very often found
deserving of great respect, recommends this Tantra stuff. Or do you,
Hbkta? Perhaps this was not what you meant by Tantra? I'd be glad if
you would explain this a bit more.
Yours confusedly,
Sevenhundred Elves
HB...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), omjaroo <omja...@yahoo.com>
this over view of Tantra might help:
http://www.swamij.com/tantra.htm
you might like to check out any books by Arthur Avalon, aka Sir John
Woodruf (woodrove?? unsure off the top off my head of the spelling)
Richard Corfield
>
> Love is a great force. And if we love, shouldn't we love most the most
> pure and holy, God Himself? It's perfectly logical I agree with you
> on that. But I still stick to Hatha Yoga (which really IS Raja Yoga,
> or one might even say that Raja Yoga is a part of Hatha Yoga, the
> spiritual part) even knowing that total dedication to God might
> liberate me much quicker or more conveniently. I guess I just don't
> like the idea of theocracy that all such movements eventually try to
> implement if given half a chance. It looks like in humans the drive
> for power is about as strong as the drive for love.
The Bhakti Sutras talk about avoiding organised religion for these
reasons.
omjaroo
In the bibliography of Richard Hittleman's, Yoga: The 8 Steps to
Health and Peace, he lists as suggested reading, Woodroffe, Sir John,
The Serpent Power, Ganesh & Co., Madras, 1972.
Jared
o
^
omjaroo
<Richard.Corfi...@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:
> On 2008-05-22, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid> wrote:
> > Love is a great force.
Love is the only force.
> The Bhakti Sutras talk about avoiding organised religion for these
> reasons.
Love isn't something you "do" as in practice religion. Love is "who"
and "what" you are, as in complete acceptance of what is. No matter
what your believe, your understanding or your motivation this
"acceptance" is the "goal" referred to as yoga (oneness) and the
purpose of all forms of the science of yoga (doing.)
Jared
o
^
omjaroo
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), omjaroo <omja...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, as I am certain you are aware, there are many who believe bhakti
> >to be the fastest, easiest and most accessible of all the yogic paths.
>
> Those would perhaps be the "Hare Krishnas".
Hi 700e,
It's been awhile, good to hear from you :-)
Yes the HK's are one of the big proponents of Bhakti, but by no means
the only.I've run across this ideal dozens of time. The Gita
references Bhakti big time. Along with Karma, Jnana, Raja, Hatha and
the rest of the yogas.
Jared
o
^
> on that. But I still stick to Hatha Yoga (which really IS Raja Yoga,
> or one might even say that Raja Yoga is a part of Hatha Yoga, the
> spiritual part) even knowing that total dedication to God might
> liberate me much quicker or more conveniently. I guess I just don't
> like the idea of theocracy that all such movements eventually try to
> implement if given half a chance. It looks like in humans the drive
> for power is about as strong as the drive for love.
This whole idea that one yoga is superior to another is most
unfortunate. It is really that we are all, as individuals, more
inclined to or better suited to one form of yoga over another. It
isn't that one is better or faster or easier, they are all the same.
Hence my reference to the different flavors of ice cream :-)
> Anyway, earlier in this thread, Hbkta mentioned Tantra. Hbkta, I've
> always associated tantrism with sex, "dual cultivation" and all that
> jazz. So I haven't thought it was very serious. It seems to go against
> the grain of the rest of yoga, where we try to learn to get over
> attachments. In the seventies I read a book where two yogis, a man and
> a woman, were depicted having sex in different asana-like positions,
> and I believe the book was called Tantra Yoga or something like that
> (I shouldn't think there's an English translation, the pictures were
> far too explicit for the American or the English taste/law). To me, it
> seemed partly like a trick to sell hardcore porn in a socially
> acceptable way, but partly, the authors also seemed quite serious
> about this sex/tantra thing. I considered buying the book, but
> eventually decided against it, instead staying with those asanas I
> knew, and having sex in the common way. At the time I didn't know any
> women who were both into yoga and into having sex with me. (I still
> don't, but I've since found that even a non-yogi can appreciate some
> of those tantric positions, so the reading was not a total waste of
> time. But I wouldn't call it yoga.)
The common (hopelessly ill informed) understanding of Tantra is that
it is somehow "sexual" yoga. Oh well what can I say. My understanding
of tantra is substantial but my no means close to comprehensive and I
have reached this level after many years of hard work and study. So
for the uninitiated to make this mistake in their understanding of
what tantra is, is not in the least surprising :-(
> But now I learn that Hbkta, whose opinions I have very often found
> deserving of great respect, recommends this Tantra stuff. Or do you,
> Hbkta? Perhaps this was not what you meant by Tantra? I'd be glad if
> you would explain this a bit more.
I'm with you, I hope HB will share some more of his understanding of
and experience with Tantra. There is a great deal of worthwhile
material on the subject, along with a lot of junk. Rajneesh is one of
the best I've encountered but, Hittleman, Sivananda and numerous old
school yogis will reference the Tantra "school" of yoga. Very old
stuff!
Jared
o
^
HB...@hotmail.com
> HG,
>
> > > Just like ice cream. Pick any flavor you like or try a new one.
> > > They're all good :-)
>
> > Yes Jared, I am quite aware that they are all good, (probably that is
> > why I prefer Tantra, since it includes everything you've listed,
>
> Please remember that even though I am personally responding to you,
> everything I write is done so in the hopes that others who wish to
> might benefit from the ideas presented and/or join in the discussion.
>
Thanks for the heads up. This helps me understand the difficulty I
often experience when reading your posts.
I would appreciate if you would respond to me without concern for
some imaginary audience.
There may be no point for me to respond to any of your postings when I
cannot know if your post is genuine or if you are playing to an
imaginary audience.
> Of course you are correct, each form of yoga contains everything
> listed and can be used to develop all these attributes if properly
> understood and practiced.
>
> > although your "translations" seem overly simplistic to the point of
> > being misleading.)
>
> I'm not sure which translations you are referring to. The "one word"
> translations or the "further translation" of the translations,
> mentioned in an earlier part of this thread. I'd be interested to know
> what, how and why, something I've said is misleading.
Specifically the “one word” translations,
For example, ALL yogic paths are concerned with Truth, to imply by a
one word definition that Truth somehow sets Jnana apart from other
yogas is misleading . Bhakti, is more accurately read as devotion,
not love. There is a difference. As 700 points out Hatha is Raja,
>
> > but it seems that your Jnanis are not,
> > as per the opening line from the article you cited:
> > "Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> > and nowhere is any mention made of anything resembling Bhakti,
> > and so my question, "Where is the Bhakti in all this?"
> > (or is the article flawed, incomplete.)
>
> I agree with you the article is most certainly flawed.
So it seems I misinterpreted your opening comment on the cited
material at the beginning of the thread. “One of the most succinct
and accurate descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen. “
> I took the
> quotes, out of context, from wikipedia. I posted them because they
> made a bit of sense in English and I thought they would be a good
> springboard for discussion.
>
> I don't really know what the sanskrit terms mean, I don't know if the
> concepts conveyed actually correspond to the sankrit accurately
> (yogicly or linguistically)
Every specialized field of endeavour develops its own terminology,
knowing the terminology generally goes hand in hand with knowledge of
the field. Try reading a professional journal of some field of which
you have little or no knowledge. Read it without looking up any of its
technical terms to see how much sense it makes, to see how much you
can understand. Do you think if you tried to paraphrase such an
article, again without having looked up any of the specialized
language, into your own words that it would convey the meaning of the
original, or would it sound unlike the original. Someone who knows
the meaning of the specialized terminology will be able to present the
material without using them and still convey its meaning accurately.
As far as Yoga goes there are online Sanskrit/English dictionaries
that can be helpful in that regard.
> and I don't agree with idea that there
> even is such a thing as salvation
you could look up "mukti" and "moksa": salvation and emancipation.
> or with the conclusions presented. I
> don't have to know these "details" to practice jnana or any other form
> of yoga. Just as a hatha yogi in the west doesn't have to know
> sanskrit to practice asana.
If one wants to go from point A to point B then it is advisable to
know how to read the map. If the map is in Sanskrit, then one at least
needs an accurate transcription into one’s native language to know how
to proceed. You do not have to know Sanskrit but you do have to know
the concepts conveyed by the specialized, technical language of yoga,
other- wise you will miss the point. A few well placed misconceptions
reduces asana practice to mere stretching, pranayam to mere huffing
and puffing, and so on, bhakti to fundamentalist fanaticism, jnana
to mere intellectual gymnastics and speculation, and so on ...,
>
> I am very much in line with you that they seem to have missed bhakti
> altogether. The post wasn't meant to be an edict or pronouncement of
> ultimate yogic wisdom, it was intended to introduce some jnanic ideas
> and encourage discussion about how they might be relevant to a
> realistic western yoga practice.
for myself, the article would have been more truthful if it had said
"Jnâna yoga teaches four means to salvation," instead of "Jnâna yoga
teaches that there are four means to salvation"
which seems declarative, there are four means, not three or five or
six, just these four, no others.
omjaroo
Firstly let me apologize for misspelling your initials in my last
post. I realize how sensitive you are to the turn of a word or phrase.
No offense intended, strictly a typo :-(
> > Please remember that even though I am personally responding to you,
> > everything I write is done so in the hopes that others who wish to
> > might benefit from the ideas presented and/or join in the discussion.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. This helps me understand the difficulty I
> often experience when reading your posts.
I suspect some of the trouble may be the "projection" of your meaning
into what I have written. Based on the responses I read from you, I
rarely get the impression that you understand my meaning or at least
acknowledge it.
> I would appreciate if you would respond to me without concern for
> some imaginary audience.
OK, but what about our imaginary audience :-)
> There may be no point for me to respond to any of your postings when I
> cannot know if your post is genuine or if you are playing to an
> imaginary audience.
Agreed.
> > Of course you are correct, each form of yoga contains everything
> > listed and can be used to develop all these attributes if properly
> > understood and practiced.
>
> > > although your "translations" seem overly simplistic to the point of
> > > being misleading.)
>
> > I'm not sure which translations you are referring to. The "one word"
> > translations or the "further translation" of the translations,
> > mentioned in an earlier part of this thread. I'd be interested to know
> > what, how and why, something I've said is misleading.
>
> Specifically the “one word” translations,
I take it you're not real big on poetry, heh?
> For example, ALL yogic paths are concerned with Truth, to imply by a
> one word definition that Truth somehow sets Jnana apart from other
> yogas is misleading . Bhakti, is more accurately read as devotion,
> not love. There is a difference. As 700 points out Hatha is Raja,
I think I spent a significant number of words describing how all yogas
are fundamentally the same but how they differ in focus or flavor.
BTW, hatha is considered by some to be a subset of Raja. I'm not sure
there is any kind of consensus in this regard. The meaningless
arguments over history, classification, lineage, etc. are numerous and
not at all required to learn / understand yoga.
> > > but it seems that your Jnanis are not,
> > > as per the opening line from the article you cited:
> > > "Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> > > and nowhere is any mention made of anything resembling Bhakti,
> > > and so my question, "Where is the Bhakti in all this?"
> > > (or is the article flawed, incomplete.)
>
> > I agree with you the article is most certainly flawed.
>
> So it seems I misinterpreted your opening comment on the cited
> material at the beginning of the thread. “One of the most succinct
> and accurate descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
I guess you did. I made a qualified statement concerning personal
experience. I did not say "it was so." Imagine, if I thought of that
article as some of the best I had seen, just how little good material
is available for the western jnani :-)
> > I took the
> > quotes, out of context, from wikipedia. I posted them because they
> > made a bit of sense in English and I thought they would be a good
> > springboard for discussion.
>
> > I don't really know what the sanskrit terms mean, I don't know if the
> > concepts conveyed actually correspond to the sankrit accurately
> > (yogicly or linguistically)
>
> Every specialized field of endeavour develops its own terminology,
> knowing the terminology generally goes hand in hand with knowledge of
> the field. Try reading a professional journal of some field of which
> you have little or no knowledge. Read it without looking up any of its
> technical terms to see how much sense it makes, to see how much you
> can understand. Do you think if you tried to paraphrase such an
> article, again without having looked up any of the specialized
> language, into your own words that it would convey the meaning of the
> original, or would it sound unlike the original. Someone who knows
> the meaning of the specialized terminology will be able to present the
> material without using them and still convey its meaning accurately.
> As far as Yoga goes there are online Sanskrit/English dictionaries
> that can be helpful in that regard.
Here I was trying to explain why the quote may have not fit my
personal view perfectly and my purpose for making it. I was not
claiming ignorance, nor was I excusing the incongruity, I was simply
stating what seems obvious to me.
Do you suppose it possible that one could know the words well and yet
still have no idea what yoga is? Language is one type of knowledge,
intuition another, experience yet another.
> > and I don't agree with idea that there
> > even is such a thing as salvation
>
> you could look up "mukti" and "moksa": salvation and emancipation.
OK, done. Now what? Should (could) I reduce my knowledge and
understanding in order to make the more limited idea of "mukti" my
understanding. I put forward, that there is no such thing as
salvation. This conclusion is based on my own study, experience and
knowing. Don't you think it might be more interesting to try and
understand why I would say that, than suggesting I read definitions of
words I have probably read hundreds of times?
> > or with the conclusions presented. I
> > don't have to know these "details" to practice jnana or any other form
> > of yoga. Just as a hatha yogi in the west doesn't have to know
> > sanskrit to practice asana.
> If one wants to go from point A to point B then it is advisable to
> know how to read the map. If the map is in Sanskrit, then one at least
> needs an accurate transcription into one’s native language to know how
> to proceed. You do not have to know Sanskrit but you do have to know
> the concepts conveyed by the specialized, technical language of yoga,
> other- wise you will miss the point.
This is not correct, sorry :-(
> A few well placed misconceptions
> reduces asana practice to mere stretching, pranayam to mere huffing
> and puffing, and so on, bhakti to fundamentalist fanaticism, jnana
> to mere intellectual gymnastics and speculation, and so on ...,
This is a brilliantly written statement! I like it...
> > I am very much in line with you that they seem to have missed bhakti
> > altogether. The post wasn't meant to be an edict or pronouncement of
> > ultimate yogic wisdom, it was intended to introduce some jnanic ideas
> > and encourage discussion about how they might be relevant to a
> > realistic western yoga practice.
>
> for myself, the article would have been more truthful if it had said
>
> "Jnâna yoga teaches four means to salvation," instead of "Jnâna yoga
> teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> which seems declarative, there are four means, not three or five or
> six, just these four, no others.
I just can't get past the idea, that of all the wealth of person
synthesis, ideas, etc that I shared in this post you haven't
mentioned / discussed any of them. Its as if you aren't interested in
discussing what I am interested in discussing, rather you want to pick
on word and ideas I didn't even write. Why is that?
> > > Or does "Jnana" yoga not
> > > recognise Bhakti as a means to salvation?
> > > It was a sincere question. I thought perhaps that with your penchant
> > > for Jnana, you might be able to supply a reasonable answer.
>
> > But to address your question which I had originally interpreted as a
> > statement (sorry), Jnana does in fact recognize Bhakti as path to
> > enlightenment. After all a Jnani would have to dismiss a really big
> > chunk of truth and reality not to :-)
>
> > BTW, as I am certain you are aware, there are many who believe bhakti
> > to be the fastest, easiest and most accessible of all the yogic paths.
> > And from a jnanic point of view this makes perfect sense. Because once
> > someone "knows" or even "suspects" the Truth or is Self-realized, then
> > there's nothing left "to do" but let go and celebrate (worship :-)
Case in point, you asked a question, I gave an answer and that comment
went unacknowledged. Hmm...
I recall some time ago setting out to respond to one of your responses
and coming to the conclusion, that we were just too far apart to try
to bridge the understanding gap. While I think you are trying in this
exchange, I still don't feel like we're discussing. I feel like you're
picking at my words while ignoring their meaning. So trying to respond
respectfully and genuinely is a chore, rather than a free exchange of
personal experience / process / synthesis. I do hope we can get past
whatever the need is for this kind of exchange.
Jared
o
^
HB...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> But now I learn that Hbkta, whose opinions I have very often found
> deserving of great respect, recommends this Tantra stuff. Or do you,
> Hbkta? Perhaps this was not what you meant by Tantra? I'd be glad if
> you would explain this a bit more.
>
> Yours confusedly,
> Sevenhundred Elves
So , 700, did the overview of Tantra help at all.?
HB
Sevenhundred Elves
Yes, it did. Thank you. It was surprising (to me) that there are so
many different kinds of Tantra. I hope the information you provided
will prevent me from ever looking stupid again. :-)
S.
dumb_fishie
> This is from wikipedia. One of the most succinct and accurate
> descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
>
>
> * Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between
> what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything
> else in the universe.)
> "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
I'm with hbkta on this. It's not the first time I've seen this
attitude.
krishnananda also thinks one should not worry about vairagya
because it will happen automaticlaly after one succeeds at
practice.
So how does one succeed at practice without it? One cannot.
Somebody is not getting the clue here, about how to teach, and
I don't mean you personally. I think it's all of HInduism.
> * Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind),
> Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that
> are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana
> (perfect concentration).
> * Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal
> limitations.
>
> Anyone care to talk about this?
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
dumb_fishie
>
> When trying to understand the science of yoga and it functions and
> effects, it is important not to confuse religious, cultural,
> linguistic, historical and other regional attributes with the art and
> science itself. Yoga is universal. Obviously it is going to be
> practiced in different context, language and style in the West then it
> is in the East. Many things eastern are couched in "religious" ideas
> and are communicated in poetic terms. That's their history and
> development. Westerners tend to be business like, practical minded and
> pragmatic (even while being religious). This is our history and
> development.
>
> We wouldn't sit down to an Ethiopian meal and proclaim, "what am I
> suppose to do with that? I've never seen that, I can't understand and
> cook that. It's incomprehensible to me, it must only be for Ethiopians
> or people who devote their lives to it." No, hopefully we just eat, we
> enjoy and we grow from the sustenance and revel in the company of
> those who have fed us. The truth is, while having a very different
> look, smell and flavor, it is none the less food. For those of us who
> can't get past the appearance of things and discern their real
> meaning, we face a life of fear, unhappiness and inevitable death, all
> devoid of joy and a sense of belonging and oneness (yoga).
That's not the way it is at all. let's take, for example, the book
titled "Raja Yoga" by Vivekananda. In the section where he discusses
the obstacles to meditation, he first mentions one obstacle and
discusses
that, then he goes off on a tangent and never goes back. So we get to
learn
about one obstacle. That is not poetry, that is just bad teaching.
Doing things that way, the Hindus couldn't even teach anyone how to
play tiddlywinks. It's the most ineffectual thing I've ever seen .
If it's the yoga sutras you are thinking of, that could come under
the
realm of poetry, but I learned recently that it is not actually
considered
to be a book for beginners at all.
dumb_fishie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: On page 22, in "The First Steps" section, he mention two
obstacles:
unhealthy body and then doubt.
Then he goes off on a tangent with a traditional story
about a god and a demon, godly and demonic natures
in human beings, then on to pranayama.
If unhealthy body and doubt were the only problems,
it would be easy.
I am sticking with my bad teaching conclusion.
HB...@hotmail.com
> HB,
>
> Firstly let me apologize for misspelling your initials in my last
> post. I realize how sensitive you are to the turn of a word or phrase.
Apparently you do not realize. There is a vast difference between
being “sensitive” in the sense of taking personal insult at something
as innocuous as a typo as you seem to think I am, and being perceptive
of the subtle nuances of meaning intended or otherwise in written
communication.
> No offense intended, strictly a typo :-(
No offence was taken or perceived as intended. My name is not who I
am. My name is just a sound or typed letters that, for convenience
sake, people can use in order to let me know my attention is desired.
>
> > > Please remember that even though I am personally responding to you,
> > > everything I write is done so in the hopes that others who wish to
> > > might benefit from the ideas presented and/or join in the discussion.
>
> > Thanks for the heads up. This helps me understand the difficulty I
> > often experience when reading your posts.
>
> I suspect some of the trouble may be the "projection" of your meaning
> into what I have written.
I also have noticed that when communications go awry it is usually
because of something the other is doing or not doing. ;-)
> Based on the responses I read from you, I
> rarely get the impression that you understand my meaning or at least
> acknowledge it.
>
That sounds like an echo of a previous post of yours made to the group
at large, same tenor different details:
"... Rarely is what I
say acknowledged, understood or even discussed."
So for some reason or another it would seem your posts are rarely
understood or acknowledged. And while some of the trouble may be me
projecting meaning into your words, there seem to be other, very real,
contributing factors.
> > I would appreciate if you would respond to me without concern for
> > some imaginary audience.
>
> OK, but what about our imaginary audience :-)
When you read their posts, then respond to them.
>
> > There may be no point for me to respond to any of your postings when I
> > cannot know if your post is genuine or if you are playing to an
> > imaginary audience.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > Of course you are correct, each form of yoga contains everything
> > > listed and can be used to develop all these attributes if properly
> > > understood and practiced.
>
> > > > although your "translations" seem overly simplistic to the point of
> > > > being misleading.)
>
> > > I'm not sure which translations you are referring to. The "one word"
> > > translations or the "further translation" of the translations,
> > > mentioned in an earlier part of this thread. I'd be interested to know
> > > what, how and why, something I've said is misleading.
>
> > Specifically the “one word” translations,
>
> I take it you're not real big on poetry, heh?
Oh, is that what that was ? :-)
>
> > For example, ALL yogic paths are concerned with Truth, to imply by a
> > one word definition that Truth somehow sets Jnana apart from other
> > yogas is misleading . Bhakti, is more accurately read as devotion,
> > not love. There is a difference. As 700 points out Hatha is Raja,
>
> I think I spent a significant number of words describing how all yogas
> are fundamentally the same but how they differ in focus or flavor.
Must have missed it.
> BTW, hatha is considered by some to be a subset of Raja. I'm not sure
> there is any kind of consensus in this regard. The meaningless
> arguments over history, classification, lineage, etc. are numerous and
> not at all required to learn / understand yoga.
>
sure, the meaningless arguments are not necesary
> > > > but it seems that your Jnanis are not,
> > > > as per the opening line from the article you cited:
> > > > "Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> > > > and nowhere is any mention made of anything resembling Bhakti,
> > > > and so my question, "Where is the Bhakti in all this?"
> > > > (or is the article flawed, incomplete.)
>
> > > I agree with you the article is most certainly flawed.
>
> > So it seems I misinterpreted your opening comment on the cited
> > material at the beginning of the thread. “One of the most succinct
> > and accurate descriptions of this form of yoga I have seen.
>
> I guess you did. I made a qualified statement concerning personal
> experience.
I got that. You were saying that you considered the article, ” One of
the most succinct and accurate descriptions of this form of yoga I
have seen.” I was just wondering how that fit with also thinking that
“the article is most certainly flawed.” ... Why post something which
you consider to be “most certainly flawed,” introducing it as one of
the best you’ve seen? No offence intended, but it sounds like you’re
trying to suck and blow at the same time.
> I did not say "it was so." Imagine, if I thought of that
> article as some of the best I had seen, just how little good material
> is available for the western jnani :-)
>
>
Yup, sounds like you’re trying to pick the kernels of corn out of a
pile of cow crap.
>
>
>
> > > I took the
> > > quotes, out of context, from wikipedia. I posted them because they
> > > made a bit of sense in English and I thought they would be a good
> > > springboard for discussion.
>
> > > I don't really know what the sanskrit terms mean, I don't know if the
> > > concepts conveyed actually correspond to the sankrit accurately
> > > (yogicly or linguistically)
>
> > Every specialized field of endeavour develops its own terminology,
> > knowing the terminology generally goes hand in hand with knowledge of
> > the field. Try reading a professional journal of some field of which
> > you have little or no knowledge. Read it without looking up any of its
> > technical terms to see how much sense it makes, to see how much you
> > can understand. Do you think if you tried to paraphrase such an
> > article, again without having looked up any of the specialized
> > language, into your own words that it would convey the meaning of the
> > original, or would it sound unlike the original. Someone who knows
> > the meaning of the specialized terminology will be able to present the
> > material without using them and still convey its meaning accurately.
> > As far as Yoga goes there are online Sanskrit/English dictionaries
> > that can be helpful in that regard.
>
> Here I was trying to explain why the quote may have not fit my
> personal view perfectly and my purpose for making it. I was not
> claiming ignorance, nor was I excusing the incongruity, I was simply
> stating what seems obvious to me.
>
It was obvious to me that, you were making simple straitforward
statements indicating that you did not know the meaning of the
Sanskrit words or if the English translations, explanations were
accurate,
> Do you suppose it possible that one could know the words well and yet
> still have no idea what yoga is?
Certainly.
However, one would in that case at least know intellectually what
yoga is. One would in that case at least have valid criteria with
which to execute and evaluate one’s efforts and results in yoga
practice. Whereas someone who has no idea what the words mean, someone
who makes it up as they go along or changes the meaning of terminology
to suit their personal whim and fancy, will have no idea if what they
are practicing is yoga or not.
> Language is one type of knowledge,
> intuition another, experience yet another.
>
I would say those are ways of knowing, ways of acquiring knowledge, as
opposed to types of knowledge.
Language is unique of the three that it enables transmission of
knowledge to others. Words have meaning which is agreed upon in order
to make communication possible. Like I tell my daughter,”If you read
something you do not understand, look the word(s) up in the code
book.”
And as far as intuition goes, it is mere opinion, not knowing, unless
and until it is objectively verified.
> > > and I don't agree with idea that there
> > > even is such a thing as salvation
>
> > you could look up "mukti" and "moksa": salvation and emancipation.
>
> OK, done. Now what? Should (could) I reduce my knowledge and
> understanding in order to make the more limited idea of "mukti" my
> understanding.
No
> I put forward, that there is no such thing as
> salvation. This conclusion is based on my own study, experience and
> knowing.
All your conclusion says to me is that your experience does not
include anything approaching mukti.
> Don't you think it might be more interesting to try and
> understand why I would say that, than suggesting I read definitions of
> words I have probably read hundreds of times?
>
First of all, since you had indicated a lack of interest in knowing
the meaning of the words you were reading and commenting on, there was
no reason for me to assume that you had read the definitions of mukti
or moksa even once.
Secondly, as to why you would say that, not really interested. My
practice and experience provide me enough evidence for the
plausibility of mukti.
> > > or with the conclusions presented. I
> > > don't have to know these "details" to practice jnana or any other form
> > > of yoga. Just as a hatha yogi in the west doesn't have to know
> > > sanskrit to practice asana.
> > If one wants to go from point A to point B then it is advisable to
> > know how to read the map. If the map is in Sanskrit, then one at least
> > needs an accurate transcription into one’s native language to know how
> > to proceed. You do not have to know Sanskrit but you do have to know
> > the concepts conveyed by the specialized, technical language of yoga,
> > other- wise you will miss the point.
>
> This is not correct, sorry :-(
>
Just because we disagree is no reason to put on a sad face.
> > A few well placed misconceptions
> > reduces asana practice to mere stretching, pranayam to mere huffing
> > and puffing, and so on, bhakti to fundamentalist fanaticism, jnana
> > to mere intellectual gymnastics and speculation, and so on ...,
>
> This is a brilliantly written statement! I like it...
>
And one might naturally wonder that if a few misconceptions can so
drastically alter the nature of one’s practice, then how can one know
that one is indeed practicing asana or pranayam or bhati or jnana,
etc. ?
How could that be checked? How could the accuracy of one’s practice be
verified?
The simplest would be to check out the definition of yoga, as per
Patanjali, yogacittivrittinirodha, and know that any valid and
effective yoga practice will increase and deepen the experience of
cittivrittinirodh. If one’s practice is not leading to ever
increasing reduction of waves in the mind-pool, then something about
one’s practice is definitely not yoga.
> > > I am very much in line with you that they seem to have missed bhakti
> > > altogether. The post wasn't meant to be an edict or pronouncement of
> > > ultimate yogic wisdom, it was intended to introduce some jnanic ideas
> > > and encourage discussion about how they might be relevant to a
> > > realistic western yoga practice.
>
> > for myself, the article would have been more truthful if it had said
>
> > "Jnâna yoga teaches four means to salvation," instead of "Jnâna yoga
> > teaches that there are four means to salvation"
> > which seems declarative, there are four means, not three or five or
> > six, just these four, no others.
>
> I just can't get past the idea, that of all the wealth of person
> synthesis, ideas, etc that I shared in this post you haven't
> mentioned / discussed any of them. Its as if you aren't interested in
> discussing what I am interested in discussing, rather you want to pick
> on word and ideas I didn't even write. Why is that?
You introduced an article for discussion, I was discussing it.
dis•cuss Pronunciation:\di-ˈskəs\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French discusser, Latin
discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart +
quatere to shake — more at DIS-, QUASH
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : DISPEL
2 a: to investigate by reasoning or argument b: to present in detail
for examination or consideration <discussed plans for the party> c: to
talk about
3obsolete : DECLARE
— dis•cuss•able or dis•cuss•ible \-ˈskə-sə-bəl\ adjective
— dis•cuss•er noun
synonyms DISCUSS, ARGUE, DEBATE mean to discourse about in order to
reach conclusions or to convince. DISCUSS implies a sifting of
possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con
<discussed the need for a new highway>. ARGUE implies the offering of
reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held <argued
that the project would be too costly>. DEBATE suggests formal or
public argument between opposing parties <debated the merits of the
amendment>; it may also apply to deliberation with oneself <I'm
debating whether I should go>.
>
> > > > Or does "Jnana" yoga not
> > > > recognise Bhakti as a means to salvation?
> > > > It was a sincere question. I thought perhaps that with your penchant
> > > > for Jnana, you might be able to supply a reasonable answer.
>
> > > But to address your question which I had originally interpreted as a
> > > statement (sorry), Jnana does in fact recognize Bhakti as path to
> > > enlightenment. After all a Jnani would have to dismiss a really big
> > > chunk of truth and reality not to :-)
>
> > > BTW, as I am certain you are aware, there are many who believe bhakti
> > > to be the fastest, easiest and most accessible of all the yogic paths.
> > > And from a jnanic point of view this makes perfect sense. Because once
> > > someone "knows" or even "suspects" the Truth or is Self-realized, then
> > > there's nothing left "to do" but let go and celebrate (worship :-)
>
> Case in point, you asked a question, I gave an answer and that comment
> went unacknowledged. Hmm...
Sorry
Thanks for answering my question.
>
> I recall some time ago setting out to respond to one of your responses
> and coming to the conclusion, that we were just too far apart to try
> to bridge the understanding gap.
Yes, I remember that was your conclusion.
> While I think you are trying in this
> exchange, I still don't feel like we're discussing. I feel like you're
> picking at my words while ignoring their meaning.
Well, I am trying to figure out what it is you mean by the words you
use.
> So trying to respond
> respectfully and genuinely is a chore,
Have you been dissing me again without my noticing?
> rather than a free exchange of
> personal experience / process / synthesis.
free flow exchange generally requires a common base of knowledge,
experience, belief, definitions of words even.
> I do hope we can get past
> whatever the need is for this kind of exchange.
>
I hear ya.
> Jared
> o
> ^- Hide quoted text -