Yoga - What is YOUR definition of "yoga"

Author

What is YOUR definition of "yoga"

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

Howdy!

I see a lot of hostility here that probably stems from simple semantics.

So... just so that I can tell where everybody is coming from here is a
simple multiple choice question:

WHAT IS: "Yoga/yoga"?

A: A religion
B: A philosophy
C: A discipline
D: Other (please explain.)

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:5Ydie.1370$8g.1128@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy!
>
> I see a lot of hostility here that probably stems from simple semantics.
>
> So... just so that I can tell where everybody is coming from here is a
> simple multiple choice question:
>
> WHAT IS: "Yoga/yoga"?
>
> A: A religion
> B: A philosophy
> C: A discipline
> D: Other (please explain.)
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>

What the heck, I'll start!

The best description of yoga that I've ever found was given by Swami
Vivekananda:

"Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest the divinity
within by controlling nature: external and internal. Do this either by work,
or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy -- by one, or more, or all of
these and be free."

Dave

omjaram

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

Fantastic. Would you please site the quote.

Namaste

shy dolphin

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

For me Yoga is basically:

' getting in touch with the emptyness of the mind by doing exercises
in awareness, thus growing spiritually and psychically.'

something like that. I have just written it down.

Sevenhundred Elves

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

omjaram wrote:

> Fantastic. Would you please site the quote.
>
> Namaste

I recognised it: It is from Swami Vivekanandas commentaries on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. It's in a book by Vivekananda called "Raja Yoga
or Conquering the Internal Nature". Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to
have an ISBN number, but the 17th impression of it was printed in 1978
by

S. Das Gupta at Sun Lithographing Co.
P 20 C. I. T. Road
Calcutta 10

It was published by

President, Advaita Ashrama
Mayavati, Pithoragarh, Himalayas

And the Advaita Ashrama itself may still exist at the following address:

Advaita Ashrama
5 Dehi Entally Road
Calcutta 14

I heartily recommend the book. I've seen many commentaries and
translations of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, but none better than this.

S.

puma

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

Howdy Dave,

I am sorry but if each soul is divine( no matter potentially or
not)divinity need not manifestation. When we are talking about divinity
that means it is allready manifested. So no matter who has said it,
even this was said by Swami Vivekenanda, this saying is not right.
Because if one knows divinity really,he/she also knows that, it is
manifested everywhere. Another saying is that there is nothing beside
DIVINITY.Everything is divine!!!

With compassion,

Puma

NBennett

2005-05-18, 11:40 am

for me, yoga is D - Other
its a process i use to normalize myself. remove the stress of the rest of my
life, uncoil my body from the way it is shaped by work, clothes, and
expectations, give my mind a rest from all the things it has to take care
of, and in this way feed my real self. i use yoga to stake my claim over
myself. i have a lot of obligations, and a lot of people expect things from
me. with yoga, i look after myself.
i can see how these things are seeping into the rest of my life, my non-yoga
life. i guess i'm evolving from D: Other to B: A Philosophy. i know hard
core yogis will be pleased with this and see me moving through B, C and all
the way to A. i'm not so sure that's where i want to go. right now i just
appreciate what yoga is for me currently.
great question.
nancy

"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:5Ydie.1370$8g.1128@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy!
>
> I see a lot of hostility here that probably stems from simple semantics.
>
> So... just so that I can tell where everybody is coming from here is a
> simple multiple choice question:
>
> WHAT IS: "Yoga/yoga"?
>
> A: A religion
> B: A philosophy
> C: A discipline
> D: Other (please explain.)
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
>

omjaram

2005-05-19, 12:05 am

Thanks for the info.

So funny the way this works. I have this book right in front of me...
Twice in the last week someone I respected has quoted Vivekananda. One
a yogi and one a Jahovah's witness. Both quotes were from his book,
RAJA YOGA.

Several months ago I had been doing some web surfing related to a point
someone here in alt.yoga had made. I ran across an interesting quote
by Vivekananda, whom I have heard mentioned from time to time, so I
looked into him. I was very interested in what I learned, so I acquired
his books, KARMA AND BHAKTI YOGA, JHANA YOGA and RAJA YOGA. (They are
all readily available on Amazon.com). I have finished, karma, bhakti
and jhana and am just about to start raja, from which the above quote
is on the 4th page just in front of the preface.

I would also highly recommend anything this man has written. I put him
on my list right up there with Yogananda and Rajneesh.

Namaste

omjaram

2005-05-19, 12:05 am

Puma, Puma, Puma,

As usual you are absolutely correct and I think Vivekanada would agree
with you. Vivekanada is also correct. Our job as jnanis is to reconcile
the seeming difference in these two statements and see the truth in
both. Because it is all God (divine) and therefore it has to be true.
:-)

Namaste

omjaram

2005-05-19, 12:05 am

> for me, yoga is D - Other
> its a process i use to normalize myself. remove the stress of the
rest of my
> life, uncoil my body from the way it is shaped by work, clothes, and
> expectations, give my mind a rest from all the things it has to take
care
> of, and in this way feed my real self. i use yoga to stake my claim
over
> myself. i have a lot of obligations, and a lot of people expect
things from
> me. with yoga, i look after myself.

I've heard it said before, but never better :-) I am casting my vote
for you as the 2005 poster child and champion of yogic enrichment :-)

> i can see how these things are seeping into the rest of my life, my
non-yoga
> life. i guess i'm evolving from D: Other to B: A Philosophy.

Evolving is good... Before you know it you will be a hardcore yogi,
doing yoga, in and as and of yoga (knower, known, knowledge becomes
one).

> i know hardcore yogis will be pleased with this and see me moving
through B, C and
>all the way to A.

We are, we are!

> i'm not so sure that's where i want to go. right now i just
> appreciate what yoga is for me currently.

And that is the all of it; you're already there. There is nowhere else
to go :-)

In my experience there are two kinds of persons who are "sure" of
themselves; those who have already "arrived" and those who have
completely and utterly missed it. I've never met (only read) the former
and I've met lots and lots of the latter ;-(

In the mean time for those of us who try hard enough, we have to learn
to live with not quite being sure of anything. Its called staying open
minded ;-)

Namaste

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-19, 8:56 am

Howdy!

I got that right off of the front cover of:

Jnana-Yoga
By: Swami Vivekananada
Pub: Ramakrishna-Vivakanandra Center New York
Copyright 1955
Mine is a blue paperback edition (Third Printing)
ISBN 0-911206-21-3

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com
"omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116312577.310422.112470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fantastic. Would you please site the quote.
>
> Namaste
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-19, 8:56 am

Howdy!

Guess I really didn't answer my own question, I just quoted what somebody
else said! I would have to say that, for me, it starts as:

B: A philosophy.

As I delve deeper into the philosophy, I see that the only way for me to
make any progress is to practice that philosophy as:

C: A Discipline.

I've been to some discussion groups where if a person was not restricting
him/herself solely to the Vedic & Upanashad writings they were a heratic of
some sort.

IMO: Wisdom and insight can also be obtained from "other resources."

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:5Ydie.1370$8g.1128@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy!
>
> I see a lot of hostility here that probably stems from simple semantics.
>
> So... just so that I can tell where everybody is coming from here is a
> simple multiple choice question:
>
> WHAT IS: "Yoga/yoga"?
>
> A: A religion
> B: A philosophy
> C: A discipline
> D: Other (please explain.)
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
>

Sevenhundred Elves

2005-05-19, 8:56 am

puma wrote:

> Howdy Dave,
>
> I am sorry but if each soul is divine( no matter potentially or
> not)divinity need not manifestation. When we are talking about divinity
> that means it is allready manifested. So no matter who has said it,
> even this was said by Swami Vivekenanda, this saying is not right.

The thing you say below:

> Because if one knows divinity really,he/she also knows that, it is
> manifested everywhere.

While that is true (this is the reason behind the greeting word
"namaste"), isn't it also true that not everybody is already aware of
this? Many start with yoga not because they already know, but because
they want to find out. I think that this "finding out" is what
Vivekananda means when he talks about manifestation.

> Another saying is that there is nothing beside
> DIVINITY.Everything is divine!!!
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

Namaste

S.

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-19, 11:54 am

Howdy puma!

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116367879.680213.215950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Dave,
>
> I am sorry but if each soul is divine( no matter potentially or
> not)divinity need not manifestation.

Why? And why is potentiality v. actual irrelavant?

> When we are talking about divinity that means it is allready manifested.

That all depends on your definition of "divinity"!
Before I will concede anything like that I must be absolutely sure that we
have a total agreement as to the definition, implications and context in
which we use the word.

> So no matter who has said it,
> even this was said by Swami Vivekenanda, this saying is not right.
> Because if one knows divinity really,

"IF one knows divinity"
First (as I said before) we have to agree on a definition of "divinity"
Second, we would have to agree on a definition of "KNOWS".
Are you talking about empirical knowledge, insight, deduction, induction,
enlightenment?

> he/she also knows that, it is manifested everywhere.

Big unjustified ASSUMPTION there!

> Another saying is that there is nothing beside
> DIVINITY.Everything is divine!!!

"Another saying"?
Who said it?
To whom was it said?
In what context?
In what cultural setting?

> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

You are making sweeping generalizations and assuming that we are in
agreement with the statement when, in fact, we may not even agree about the
definition of the words that you are using IN that statement!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

puma

2005-05-19, 5:53 pm

Howdy Dave,
I suppose you forget about all your making sweeping generalisations
and assumptions and you accept that we all agree on your kind
statements that you have said following words:

``

The best description of yoga that I've ever found was given by Swami
Vivekananda:

"Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest the divinity
within by controlling nature: external and internal. Do this either by
work,
or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy -- by one, or more, or
all of
these and be free." ``

If you have not accepted above and if you have not thought that we all
agree\you would not stated VIVEKANANDA`s words here!!!!!!!!!!

Before showing anybody else we have to show ourselves first......

Reason comes over everything, logic gives reason...So lets have it a
bit!

With compassion,

Puma

puma

2005-05-19, 5:53 pm

Hi there my friend Sevenhundred Elves:

If we agree that DIVINITY is everything and there is nothing behind
it,then no matter who, even VIvekananda can make a mistake we should
accept this fact at first.Finding out,looking for it,searching etc.,all
belong to DIVINITY. Good or bad,mistakes,correct actions,all are
within DIVINITY.MANIFESTATION is out there,that is here and N O W. So
DIVINITY does not need any manifestation as it is already
open........But if we assume in a waythat, there are things that are
not DIVINE, then we might need a sort of MANIFESTATION in this case!
trying to fing manifestation implies this bare thruth...I hope it is
clear this time.

With compassion,

Puma

Sevenhundred Elves

2005-05-19, 5:53 pm

puma wrote:

> Hi there my friend Sevenhundred Elves:
>
> If we agree that DIVINITY is everything and there is nothing behind
> it,then no matter who, even VIvekananda can make a mistake we should
> accept this fact at first.

Yes.. believe it or not, I've actually noticed that the dear Swami made
a few small mistakes here and there, nothing important, though.

> Finding out,looking for it,searching etc.,all
> belong to DIVINITY. Good or bad,mistakes,correct actions,all are
> within DIVINITY.

I'm with you so far.

> MANIFESTATION is out there,that is here and N O W.

Perhaps it's just me, now that I reflect on it, I'm not sure I know the
meaning of the word 'manifestation'.

> So
> DIVINITY does not need any manifestation as it is already
> open........

So manifestation has something to do with opening something?

> But if we assume in a waythat, there are things that are
> not DIVINE, then we might need a sort of MANIFESTATION in this case!

I still think that Swami Vivekananda, when he said that the goal is to
manifest the Divinity within, simply means that the goal is to become
fully aware of this inner Divinity. Most people aren't, and they also
often assume that there are things that are not divine.

> trying to fing manifestation implies this bare thruth...I hope it is
> clear this time.

No, but I think that now I'll be a bit better equipped to understand
this discussion.

Thanks
S.

Sevenhundred Elves

2005-05-19, 10:53 pm

omjaram wrote:

> Thanks for the info.
>
> So funny the way this works. I have this book right in front of me...
> Twice in the last week someone I respected has quoted Vivekananda. One
> a yogi and one a Jahovah's witness. Both quotes were from his book,
> RAJA YOGA.

There's a name for this kind of 'meaningful coincidences', it's called
synchronicity. C G Jung has written about it, citing a few highly
unlikely events that somehow were connected with the life or psyche of
someone, not by themselves, but by what they might symbolize. And I'm
sure you have heard the old saying "when the student is ready the
teacher will appear". Call me superstitious, but I think it may well
prove to be a good thing that you followed your hunches and acquired
those books.

Namaste

S.

>
> Several months ago I had been doing some web surfing related to a point
> someone here in alt.yoga had made. I ran across an interesting quote
> by Vivekananda, whom I have heard mentioned from time to time, so I
> looked into him. I was very interested in what I learned, so I acquired
> his books, KARMA AND BHAKTI YOGA, JHANA YOGA and RAJA YOGA. (They are
> all readily available on Amazon.com). I have finished, karma, bhakti
> and jhana and am just about to start raja, from which the above quote
> is on the 4th page just in front of the preface.
>
> I would also highly recommend anything this man has written. I put him
> on my list right up there with Yogananda and Rajneesh.
>
> Namaste
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-19, 10:53 pm

Howdy puma!

That was a QUALIFIED statement.

Notice that it say the "best that I HAVE EVER FOUND"

Just because it's best for me doesn't mean that it's best for you. It
doesn't necessarily mean that it is even correct!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116530595.336225.112790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Dave,
> I suppose you forget about all your making sweeping generalisations
> and assumptions and you accept that we all agree on your kind
> statements that you have said following words:
>
>
> ``
>
> The best description of yoga that I've ever found was given by Swami
> Vivekananda:
>
>
> "Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest the divinity
> within by controlling nature: external and internal. Do this either by
> work,
> or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy -- by one, or more, or
> all of
> these and be free." ``
>
> If you have not accepted above and if you have not thought that we all
> agree\you would not stated VIVEKANANDA`s words here!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Before showing anybody else we have to show ourselves first......
>
> Reason comes over everything, logic gives reason...So lets have it a
> bit!
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

omjaram

2005-05-19, 10:53 pm

Without question :-)

Namaste

Stu

2005-05-20, 8:56 am

On 2005-05-19 01:49:43 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> said:

> Howdy!
>
> Guess I really didn't answer my own question, I just quoted what somebody
> else said! I would have to say that, for me, it starts as:
>
> B: A philosophy.
>
> As I delve deeper into the philosophy, I see that the only way for me to
> make any progress is to practice that philosophy as:
>
> C: A Discipline.
>
> I've been to some discussion groups where if a person was not restricting
> him/herself solely to the Vedic & Upanashad writings they were a heratic of
> some sort.
>
> IMO: Wisdom and insight can also be obtained from "other resources."

For me it is the opposite. First off it is a discipline. It is
something to DO everyday. A practice with little judgement or
expectation. The practice is undertaken, with steadfastness and
focus. Time is put aside during the day to do it, practice is
separated from the rest of life.

Then there is a empirical scientific part of it. But this takes place
outside of the practice. I notice how Yoga influences perceptions,
attitude, thinking and the like. How does yoga alter consciousness? I
suppose that makes for the basis of a philosophy. Existential at the
core. Superficially phenomenological. Profoundly noumenonological.

Then there is the artistic part of it. The moment of life as a form of
art. How intelligence reflects itself in nature. This is the
spiritual component.

--
~Stu

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-20, 11:59 am

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-21, 8:51 am

Howdy puma!

Using a word as abstract as "divinity" in the same context doesn't mean
diddley-squat unless we either are in full agreement about the definition of
the word or we are fully aware of the other person's definition of the word.

Since I do not know what your definition of "divinity" is, I am not
prepaired to make a decision about whether or not I agree with your
statement.

In any case, I am not prepaired to make any judgements about the correctness
or incorrectness of another person's PERCEPTIONS.

Blame it on Jnana Yoga if you like!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116629697.941636.43600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Dave,
>
> I was reasoning on your QUALIFIED STATEMENT,but you have asked many
> questions regarding your own qualified statement.
> regarding the definition of divinity,although I have used divinity in
> the same contex with the SWAMI...
>
> Are you aware of this fact dave?
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-21, 8:51 am

Then again...

Maybe it's just because I'm a cantankerous old technical writer!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:YdBje.1724$8g.633@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy puma!
>
> Using a word as abstract as "divinity" in the same context doesn't mean
> diddley-squat unless we either are in full agreement about the definition
of
> the word or we are fully aware of the other person's definition of the
word.
>
> Since I do not know what your definition of "divinity" is, I am not
> prepaired to make a decision about whether or not I agree with your
> statement.
>
> In any case, I am not prepaired to make any judgements about the
correctness
> or incorrectness of another person's PERCEPTIONS.
>
> Blame it on Jnana Yoga if you like!

>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
> "puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1116629697.941636.43600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-21, 8:51 am

Howdy puma!

Not questioning your statement...

Only attempting to come to a mutual understanding on our terminology!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116629697.941636.43600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Dave,
>
> I was reasoning on your QUALIFIED STATEMENT,but you have asked many
> questions regarding your own qualified statement.
> regarding the definition of divinity,although I have used divinity in
> the same contex with the SWAMI...
>
> Are you aware of this fact dave?
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-22, 5:53 pm

Then again...

Maybe it's just because I'm a cantankerous old technical writer!

>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
> "puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1116629697.941636.43600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-23, 9:01 am

Howdy puma!

Not discrimination... IGNORANCE!

I know Swami Vivekananda's definition because he has written several books
and explicitly stated what his definition is. I have no such illumination
(yet) from you.

As soon as you tell me what your definition is, I will no longer be
ignorant!

If I find that your definition is the same as mine, I may even AGREE with
you!

Once I know both YOUR definition and HIS...
THEN I will be able to discriminate.

I'm an analyst and, in my world, being able to discriminate is a GOOD thing.

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116712994.500150.132040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Dave,
>
> My dear, it is called discrimination if you know Swami`s word divinity
> but not mine.
> Blaming is not the solution,solution is in our minds and words shows it
> others.When yo like as BEST Swami`s words,it is judement and same line
> with yours also which is the reason why you have chosen it BEST...
>
> I like Albuquerque best in New Mexcico...I like your HOWDY for this
> reason...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-24, 10:55 pm

Howdy Puma!

Sad to say, it is very difficult to follow your train of thought due to your
sentence structure.

When you say:
"I understand DIVINITY as all there exist"

are you talking about the concept of Brahman??

Your statement:
"pieces separated can not be divine"...

directly contradicts (if I am interpriting it correctly) the first quote I
took out of your post.

I think your last sentence shows the crux of the problem.
"Where WE try to see it... WE have a hard job..."

Since everybody has a unique superimposed framework that delimits how they
see things (that's my jnana vocabulary rearing it's ugly head again... look
up: "categorical framework"), IMO there can never be a universal
understanding because everybody's perception is unique!

--
Dave ©¿©¬

http://www.howdydave.com

"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1116966092.186414.80990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, S.Elves,
>
> I understand DIVINITY as all there exist...But as a TOTAL,tobe divine
> means to me as ALL together.So individuals are only pieces who makes
> divinity as ALL TOGETHER,if each piece has been meant by SWAMI then I
> can accept it,but pieces separated can not be divine,only as a piece
> they reflect it.GOD`s presence covers everywhere...There is no need
> any special manifestation...
>
> This is my understanding on divinity,as a piece,as a piece Swami`s
> understanding obviously different.And many others are different
> too,because this example of muddy lake can be seen in many
> literature...DIVINITY has everything good and bad,mud and clearity.
> When we try to see it as in the lake example,we have a hard job to do
> ....
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>

howdydave

2005-05-24, 10:55 pm

puma Wrote:
> Hi, S.Elves,
>
> I understand DIVINITY as all there exist...But as a TOTAL,tobe divine
> means to me as ALL together.So individuals are only pieces who makes
> divinity as ALL TOGETHER,if each piece has been meant by SWAMI then I
> can accept it,but pieces separated can not be divine,only as a piece
> they reflect it.GOD`s presence covers everywhere...There is no need
> any special manifestation...
>
> This is my understanding on divinity,as a piece,as a piece Swami`s
> understanding obviously different.And many others are different
> too,because this example of muddy lake can be seen in many
> literature...DIVINITY has everything good and bad,mud and clearity.
> When we try to see it as in the lake example,we have a hard job to do
> .....
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma

Howdy Puma!

Sad to say, it is very difficult to follow your train of thought due to
your sentence structure.

When you say:
\"I UNDERSTAND DIVINITY AS ALL THERE EXIST\"

are you talking about the concept of *-Brahman-*??

Your statement:
\"PIECES SEPARATED CAN NOT BE DIVINE\"...

directly contradicts (if I am interpriting it correctly) the first
quote I took out of your post.

I think your last sentence shows the crux of the problem.
\"WHERE -WE- TRY TO SEE IT... -WE- HAVE A HARD JOB...\"

Since everybody has a unique superimposed framework that delimits how
they see things (that's my jnana vocabulary rearing it's ugly head
again... look up: "*-categorical framework-*"), IMO there can never be
a universal understanding because *everybody's perception is unique!*

--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-26, 8:54 am

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-05-29, 8:54 am