|
Home > Archive > Yoga > September 2005 > NASIKAGRA DRISHTI
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Hi There,
Gazing at the tip of the nose is called NASIKAGRA DRISHTI, this is a
very advance tantaric method to induce ajna and moola chakras.
And should be carried out in two seperate steps.
1- Eyes should be closed,just imagining the tip of your nose.About one
or two minutes.
2- Eyes should be open,just try to see the both sides of your tip of
the nose...
But without doing all other previous steps of YOGA, one can not perform
this highly advanced tecnique...
With compassion
Puma
Moon wrote:
> There's a technique called drishti, which is similar:
> see a book of Ashtanga by Larry Schultz - pag 18 (the book is free)
>
> http://www.itsyoga.net/us/tools.asp
>
> The technique is called Nasagri
>
> ----
>
> Satyananda has a similar technique (trataka) which is done gazing at
> the flame of a candle centered in direction of the eyes - one arm
> length (the flame should be steady)
| |
| meditationguru 2005-09-25, 10:34 am |
| Nasikagra is NOT tip of the nose. It is forehead region.
One need not concentrate. Concentration is the activity of the Mind.
So, one should transcend Mind to reach Self.
Meditationguru
www.meditationguru.com
| |
|
| I presume it depends on tradition.
In Satyananda's tradition, NASIKAGRA DRISHTI, is in fact "Gazing at the
tip of the nose", as Puma said.
as explained in the book "Asana, Pranayama, Mudra Bandha" by S.
Satyanansa S.
Moon
| |
|
|
The only "science" I'm seeing here is "Sociology", "Social Psychology",
and "Psycossociology".
How is generated a culture (a tradition), the concept of sub-culture
and the contra-culture. And this last one as a fact that generates
conflict.
And to generate conflict, the problem of the pathology of comunication,
namely the question of the generation of paradox.
And continuing: how certain "leaders" generates "new codes" of
information in order to convince their followers...
I think this topic should be sent to "India makes moves to reclaim
heritage from 'yoga piracy'" - which I think is more appropriate....
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-26, 5:21 pm |
| Moon wrote:
>
> The only "science" I'm seeing here is "Sociology", "Social Psychology",
> and "Psycossociology".
For some reason I guess you are refering to the "meditationguru" web
site. It would be helpful if you quote a little from the post you
answer.
>
> How is generated a culture (a tradition), the concept of sub-culture
> and the contra-culture. And this last one as a fact that generates
> conflict.
>
> And to generate conflict, the problem of the pathology of comunication,
> namely the question of the generation of paradox.
>
> And continuing: how certain "leaders" generates "new codes" of
> information in order to convince their followers...
>
> I think this topic should be sent to "India makes moves to reclaim
> heritage from 'yoga piracy'" - which I think is more appropriate....
>
>
> Moon
| |
|
| (My main background is not Sociology or Psychology, but I've studied
it well enough to give a small contribute)
ONE DEFINITION OF CULTURE:
An inheritage, or tradition by means that most people respect, follow
and agree.
For instance, we can classify Satyananda, Iyengar and Patabhi Jois as
belonging to the same culture, which is the India inheritage, and is
accepted by most Indians and most people in the world.
SUBCULTURE:
Is a part of a culture, such as, the Satyananda tradition.
CONTRACULTURE:
A particular case of subculture, whose people (members or followers)
identify themselves; but don't agree with some of the main principles
of the main culture they belong (this is a fact that generates
conflicts). (e.g.: Sahaja yoga, MeditationGuru and DeRose).
In another point of view there are the study of the pathology of
communication, and the study of the paradox.
PARADOX:
Truth: Everyone knows that all of us are human beings, mortals, and
that no one can say that is above everyone else. No one can say,
"I'm the best", nor "I'm unique", "I am a creator"
Truth, consciousness and reality are above all of us. The objective of
yoga is to reach that glimpse of truth while we are still human beings.
Yoga is NOT the BEST path, is just ONE path. Each method of meditation
is also just ONE path.
Paradox: When someone says I'm unique or my path is unique (etc),
means he is above consciousness; and that no one EVER was better than
him, nor would be in the future. And this means the humanity didn't
exist till he appeared and is going to disappear one day he dyes
(nonsense).
A paradox generates conflicts, obviously (there's no need to explain
better).
CODIFYING INFORMATION:
(A very interesting subject...)
Someone qualify as a leader (in this particular case as a guru), when
he succeed in codifying information and in influencing people.
The process: A leader, always get rid of information he doesn't like,
and gives more importance to the information that show is point of
view.
The group: The degree of people in order to be convinced. People ranges
from the ones that are "independent", "the ones that listen but
don't pay much attention", to "the easily influenced".
The best "leader" (guru) is the one that accommodates most
information in his code (without occulting any main point), belongs to
a generally accepted theory; and succeed in convincing most people
including the "independent" ones.
The worst "leader" is the one that is always obsessed in creating a
new code of information, and presumes that everyone have to follow his
code (and forget everything else known previously). He gives more
importance to the code of information(NASIKAGRA), when the most
important is to understand the concept behind. The followers are always
a small group of people easily influenced which memorize the code and
aren't able to understand the concepts behind or to get free from the
paradox.
(that's my humble opinion about that, may be another opinions...)
Moon
| |
|
| My dear Moon,
Your explanation to is perfect...However perfection differs from person
to person...As to the NASIKAGRA DRISHTI, I can give another reference
for those who want to be sure: YOGA,TANTRA and MEDITATION in DAILY LIFE
,Rider Books,by Swami Janakananda Saraswati,pages 59 and 68
The catalog record of this book ISBN 0 7126 9872 8
Personally I like to thank you for your kind information which has put
the light on the several subjects...
With compassion,
Puma
Moon wrote:
> (My main background is not Sociology or Psychology, but I've studied
> it well enough to give a small contribute)
>
> ONE DEFINITION OF CULTURE:
> An inheritage, or tradition by means that most people respect, follow
> and agree.
> For instance, we can classify Satyananda, Iyengar and Patabhi Jois as
> belonging to the same culture, which is the India inheritage, and is
> accepted by most Indians and most people in the world.
> SUBCULTURE:
> Is a part of a culture, such as, the Satyananda tradition.
> CONTRACULTURE:
> A particular case of subculture, whose people (members or followers)
> identify themselves; but don't agree with some of the main principles
> of the main culture they belong (this is a fact that generates
> conflicts). (e.g.: Sahaja yoga, MeditationGuru and DeRose).
>
> In another point of view there are the study of the pathology of
> communication, and the study of the paradox.
> PARADOX:
> Truth: Everyone knows that all of us are human beings, mortals, and
> that no one can say that is above everyone else. No one can say,
> "I'm the best", nor "I'm unique", "I am a creator"
> Truth, consciousness and reality are above all of us. The objective of
> yoga is to reach that glimpse of truth while we are still human beings.
> Yoga is NOT the BEST path, is just ONE path. Each method of meditation
> is also just ONE path.
> Paradox: When someone says I'm unique or my path is unique (etc),
> means he is above consciousness; and that no one EVER was better than
> him, nor would be in the future. And this means the humanity didn't
> exist till he appeared and is going to disappear one day he dyes
> (nonsense).
> A paradox generates conflicts, obviously (there's no need to explain
> better).
>
> CODIFYING INFORMATION:
> (A very interesting subject...)
> Someone qualify as a leader (in this particular case as a guru), when
> he succeed in codifying information and in influencing people.
> The process: A leader, always get rid of information he doesn't like,
> and gives more importance to the information that show is point of
> view.
> The group: The degree of people in order to be convinced. People ranges
> from the ones that are "independent", "the ones that listen but
> don't pay much attention", to "the easily influenced".
>
> The best "leader" (guru) is the one that accommodates most
> information in his code (without occulting any main point), belongs to
> a generally accepted theory; and succeed in convincing most people
> including the "independent" ones.
> The worst "leader" is the one that is always obsessed in creating a
> new code of information, and presumes that everyone have to follow his
> code (and forget everything else known previously). He gives more
> importance to the code of information(NASIKAGRA), when the most
> important is to understand the concept behind. The followers are always
> a small group of people easily influenced which memorize the code and
> aren't able to understand the concepts behind or to get free from the
> paradox.
>
> (that's my humble opinion about that, may be another opinions...)
>
>
> Moon
| |
|
| About leadership, a lovely quote (Desikachar in the book "The Heart of
yoga - Introduction":
When Desikachar was asked to define a guru:
"A guru is not one who has a following. A guru is one who can show me
the way (...)I can always thank my guru naturally and enjoy the
relationship, but I don't have to follow him around (...) following the
guru's destination is another way of losing yourself (...). The guru
helps you to find your own dharma"
-----------
About the misunderstanding, about the false "uniquenesse of a path",
another quote of a true guru:
"Taming the Kundalini" - Swami Satyananda Saraswati
"It can be awakened by soul force or by will. But this is not the only
means. It may be regarded as one of the methods.
It can be awakened by Hatha Yoga, but neither is that the only method.
You can call it one form of scientific method.
It can also be awakened by practicing Samyama on the centers and
realizing in experience their colour, elements, nature, Guna and the
Bija. Nor is this the only method; you may just call it a good method.
"
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-28, 9:40 am |
| Moon wrote:
> (My main background is not Sociology or Psychology, but I've studied
> it well enough to give a small contribute)
>
> ONE DEFINITION OF CULTURE:
> An inheritage, or tradition by means that most people respect, follow
> and agree.
> For instance, we can classify Satyananda, Iyengar and Patabhi Jois as
> belonging to the same culture, which is the India inheritage, and is
> accepted by most Indians and most people in the world.
> SUBCULTURE:
> Is a part of a culture, such as, the Satyananda tradition.
> CONTRACULTURE:
> A particular case of subculture, whose people (members or followers)
> identify themselves; but don't agree with some of the main principles
> of the main culture they belong (this is a fact that generates
> conflicts). (e.g.: Sahaja yoga, MeditationGuru and DeRose).
>
> In another point of view there are the study of the pathology of
> communication, and the study of the paradox.
> PARADOX:
> Truth: Everyone knows that all of us are human beings, mortals, and
> that no one can say that is above everyone else. No one can say,
> "I'm the best", nor "I'm unique", "I am a creator"
> Truth, consciousness and reality are above all of us. The objective of
> yoga is to reach that glimpse of truth while we are still human beings.
> Yoga is NOT the BEST path, is just ONE path. Each method of meditation
> is also just ONE path.
> Paradox: When someone says I'm unique or my path is unique (etc),
> means he is above consciousness; and that no one EVER was better than
> him, nor would be in the future. And this means the humanity didn't
> exist till he appeared and is going to disappear one day he dyes
> (nonsense).
> A paradox generates conflicts, obviously (there's no need to explain
> better).
>
> CODIFYING INFORMATION:
> (A very interesting subject...)
> Someone qualify as a leader (in this particular case as a guru), when
> he succeed in codifying information and in influencing people.
> The process: A leader, always get rid of information he doesn't like,
> and gives more importance to the information that show is point of
> view.
> The group: The degree of people in order to be convinced. People ranges
> from the ones that are "independent", "the ones that listen but
> don't pay much attention", to "the easily influenced".
>
> The best "leader" (guru) is the one that accommodates most
> information in his code (without occulting any main point), belongs to
> a generally accepted theory; and succeed in convincing most people
> including the "independent" ones.
> The worst "leader" is the one that is always obsessed in creating a
> new code of information, and presumes that everyone have to follow his
> code (and forget everything else known previously). He gives more
> importance to the code of information(NASIKAGRA), when the most
> important is to understand the concept behind. The followers are always
> a small group of people easily influenced which memorize the code and
> aren't able to understand the concepts behind or to get free from the
> paradox.
>
> (that's my humble opinion about that, may be another opinions...)
>
>
> Moon
Yes, I agree. Thank you for the explanation, Moon. It makes me wonder,
though: We, the common yogis who are not gurus with great followings,
also have a special language using technical terms derived from
Sanskrit, and perhaps not easily understood by people who are not into
yoga themselves. What I wonder is if this makes us, too, guilty of
codifying information?
S.
| |
|
| The most important is not the code but the concept behind. And we can
understand the concept behind not by memorizing some explanation made
by a famous guru, but by understanding it with our soul or our
unconscious.
We don't need to be great gurus, each of us has got is own path
(doesn't matter what path is: could be someone unemployed who has to
raise his kids all alone).
In other words, any one has got is mission on earth, and to accomplish
that mission has got to follow his/her own intuition (it doesn't matter
if it is a yogi or not).
About codifying information, well, as I said the best codes are the
ones that acomodates most information: I think the Pantajali code is
very good...
And in this sense, there many ways to qualify a good code:
- without occulting any important point,
- wrote in a generic way (= symbolic). I think most goods codes have
always symbols (Jesus spoke in this way), and it is up to us to
de-codify that symbolism and apply them in our life. Symbols are always
modern, they are never updated....
The best gurus are the ones that TEACH US HOW to de-codify the
information, in order we can decide (by ourselves), which path we
should follow.
The worst gurus are the ones that DON'T LET US THINK by ourselves,
present a "new code" that should be memorized (because we're ignorants
without intuition or wisdown), and explain the code with TOO MANY
details and very specifically (in oposition to the symbolism).
Moon
| |
|
| Hi Moon,
Just beautiful. I wonder if you have any book on the market? If so
please state so that I like to have one...
Sincerely,
Puma
Moon wrote:
> The most important is not the code but the concept behind. And we can
> understand the concept behind not by memorizing some explanation made
> by a famous guru, but by understanding it with our soul or our
> unconscious.
>
> We don't need to be great gurus, each of us has got is own path
> (doesn't matter what path is: could be someone unemployed who has to
> raise his kids all alone).
>
> In other words, any one has got is mission on earth, and to accomplish
> that mission has got to follow his/her own intuition (it doesn't matter
> if it is a yogi or not).
>
>
> About codifying information, well, as I said the best codes are the
> ones that acomodates most information: I think the Pantajali code is
> very good...
>
> And in this sense, there many ways to qualify a good code:
> - without occulting any important point,
> - wrote in a generic way (= symbolic). I think most goods codes have
> always symbols (Jesus spoke in this way), and it is up to us to
> de-codify that symbolism and apply them in our life. Symbols are always
> modern, they are never updated....
>
> The best gurus are the ones that TEACH US HOW to de-codify the
> information, in order we can decide (by ourselves), which path we
> should follow.
>
> The worst gurus are the ones that DON'T LET US THINK by ourselves,
> present a "new code" that should be memorized (because we're ignorants
> without intuition or wisdown), and explain the code with TOO MANY
> details and very specifically (in oposition to the symbolism).
>
>
> Moon
| |
|
| Sorry, Puma I don't have any.
I don't have any degree in Psychology, Sociology...
I'm not even a yoga teacher, I'm just a learner....
A have a degree in Management, and my vocation is statistics,
forecasting, mathematics, financial mathematics.
As you see something completely diferent...
My best meditation is about mathematics, since I was a kid:
- if we lived in a world with 2 dimensions, how was life
- if we lived in a world in 4 dimensions etc
I think there's something similar with the study of yantras..
Perhaps one day I'll get the clue
(yoga is union)
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-28, 9:40 am |
| Moon wrote:
> Sorry, Puma I don't have any.
>
> I don't have any degree in Psychology, Sociology...
> I'm not even a yoga teacher, I'm just a learner....
>
> A have a degree in Management, and my vocation is statistics,
> forecasting, mathematics, financial mathematics.
> As you see something completely diferent...
>
> My best meditation is about mathematics, since I was a kid:
> - if we lived in a world with 2 dimensions, how was life
> - if we lived in a world in 4 dimensions etc
>
> I think there's something similar with the study of yantras..
>
> Perhaps one day I'll get the clue
> (yoga is union)
>
> Moon
It's nice to hear that math interests you. Did you ever think of using
some of the five platonic bodies for Yantras? Especially the octahedron
is very suitable and symbolical (at least for me). I once made a blue
octahedron (out of stiff paper) to use as a meditation aid. I thought of
how it was pointing in all six directions, embodying the idea of space
and location, and also that it was just like a diamond crystal in shape.
I don't have it anymore, but if I ever make another one, I think I'll
make it from transparent sheets of plastic instead of paper.
But maybe you can visualize even a hypercube! If you can do that, forget
that I mentioned anything so trivial as a paper octahedron! :-)
S.
| |
|
| In yantras I'm just a beginner. Perhaps one day I'll buy that book of
Harish Johari (Tools for tantra).
But, there's something similar I've used: those books of 3D, and they
work in two ways:
a)- we have to supose we're looking to a point AFTER the book, to get
the 3rd dimention; OR
b)- we have to supose we're looking to a point BEFORE the book, to get
the 3rd dimention.
Curiously, this last method (wich is more rare to find in books), works
the NASIKAGRA DRISHTI...
Moon
| |
|
| > It's nice to hear that math interests you. Did you ever think of using
> some of the five platonic bodies for Yantras? Especially the octahedron
> is very suitable and symbolical (at least for me). I once made a blue
> octahedron (out of stiff paper) to use as a meditation aid. I thought of
> how it was pointing in all six directions, embodying the idea of space
> and location, and also that it was just like a diamond crystal in shape.
> I don't have it anymore, but if I ever make another one, I think I'll
> make it from transparent sheets of plastic instead of paper.
>
> But maybe you can visualize even a hypercube! If you can do that, forget
> that I mentioned anything so trivial as a paper octahedron! :-)
>
> S.
No, it's not trivial... As I said I'm just a beginner with yantras.
Have you got something about that? A link to a site or any book you
recomend?
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:13 pm |
| Moon wrote:
>
> No, it's not trivial... As I said I'm just a beginner with yantras.
> Have you got something about that? A link to a site or any book you
> recomend?
>
> Moon
Sorry. I don't have anything like that. But it's not really difficult.
Just look at it and think about it. Turn it in your hands if that helps.
Repeat until you are one with the meaning you perceive in it. That may
take some time. <grin>
I originally used mine for a special purpose, trying to understand more
about some religious practices of North American Indians (and others),
but it turned out to be more generally useful. As it is quite a simple
shape, and easy to visualize, I don't think I need the physical object
anymore, at least not right now. But it was helpful to have the actual
thing itself to start with.
S.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've just googled "octahedron" and look what I've found....
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Octahedron.html
Unh! That was really too much information for me at one go. But it makes
sense that it appeals to your mathematical mind. Perhaps the octahedron
would really be a good yantra for you.
> And about the theory of chaos, what do you think about it?
I don't know much about it. I've seen some pretty fractals, though.
> Do you think this book is good?
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books
Haven't read it. I read another book by Rupert Sheldrake, though, about
a "form field" or something like that, making like work upon like. I
thought it was interesting, but later I heard that his theories were
disbelieved by an overwhelming majority of physicists.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
> Hi;
>
>
> We can meditate through internet.
> 
>
> Look at the animated *.gif
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid
>
> Moon
>
Heheh. That was really nice. But it spins to quick for me.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
> In yantras I'm just a beginner. Perhaps one day I'll buy that book of
> Harish Johari (Tools for tantra).
Personally, I've never been very fond of Tantrism. So much superstition.
Or perhaps it isn't superstition, but it's still too "far out" for me.
> But, there's something similar I've used: those books of 3D, and they
> work in two ways:
> a)- we have to supose we're looking to a point AFTER the book, to get
> the 3rd dimention; OR
> b)- we have to supose we're looking to a point BEFORE the book, to get
> the 3rd dimention.
>
> Curiously, this last method (wich is more rare to find in books), works
> the NASIKAGRA DRISHTI...
Aha. So if you make a 3d representation of an octahedron or another
yantra object in that manner, using method b, you could get two
techniques for the price of one! :-)
S.
| |
|
| Here you have slower ones:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/P...Platonic_solids
------
about the other subject - yantras, I dont' see it as superstition, but
as symbols or codes (and we have to decode it).
For instance I see hindu gods as symbols (not something to believe
without understanding...)
I think that yantras have some connection with octahedrons and so on.
Have a look here:
http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~mikel/s.../sriyantra.html
----
As for the chaos theory I think there's some relation with forecast
models (statistics). For instance, the ARIMA models (Box-Jenkins) -
mainly the MA (Moving Average), they are trying to find a pattern
through randow values (= chaos)....
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
> Here you have slower ones:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/P...Platonic_solids
>
> ------
> about the other subject - yantras, I dont' see it as superstition, but
> as symbols or codes (and we have to decode it).
I'm ok with that part of tantrism.
> For instance I see hindu gods as symbols (not something to believe
> without understanding...)
So do I, and yet I also respect those baktis who want to single out one
of the gods to worship as the Highest Personality of God.
> I think that yantras have some connection with octahedrons and so on.
> Have a look here:
> http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~mikel/s.../sriyantra.html
> ----
> As for the chaos theory I think there's some relation with forecast
> models (statistics). For instance, the ARIMA models (Box-Jenkins) -
> mainly the MA (Moving Average), they are trying to find a pattern
> through randow values (= chaos)....
Interesting. I thought that if you could make predictions about a
system, then it couldn't be truly chaotic. But all this is a bit over my
head, I'm sure.
S.
| |
|
|
Hi,
This meditation in SCIENCE!
I think someone got blocked long ago....
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This meditation in SCIENCE!
>
> I think someone got blocked long ago....
Who, me?
Why?
S.
| |
|
|
|
| Continuing. I think I've discovered something:
In tantra chakras are related with:
chakra name element plato
1 mooladara earth cube (hexahedron)
2 swadistana water icosahedron
3 manipura fire tetrahedron
4 anahata air octahedron
5 vishuda ether ?
In other words your meditating in your heart chakra....
Moon
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
> Continuing. I think I've discovered something:
>
> In tantra chakras are related with:
> chakra name element plato
> 1 mooladara earth cube (hexahedron)
> 2 swadistana water icosahedron
> 3 manipura fire tetrahedron
> 4 anahata air octahedron
> 5 vishuda ether ?
>
>
> In other words your meditating in your heart chakra....
>
> Moon
Yes, I actually do that quite often, so maybe you're really on to
something.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Moon wrote:
>
> nooooo
>
> (seven post)
>
I see, but it's not always easy to know what you are replying to. It
would help if you put a reference on top, and perhaps some quoted text
from the previous post, like I did in this one. 1)
I heard it is possible to get that done automatically even if you use
Google Groups. There is some special button somewhere, or you have to
open the post you are replying to separately before you answer, or
something like that. I never use Google Groups, but I read something
about that not long ago. Sorry that I don't remember it better.
The best would be to use a real newsreader like Free Agent, if your ISP
gives you access to a news server (and most ISPs do, I believe).
S.
1) Actually my newsreader does it for me automatically when I reply to a
post. It also tries to keep posts in order in the threads, but when the
threads get too deep it sometimes fails. That's why I had to ask.
|
| |
|
|