|
Home > Archive > Yoga > February 2006 > DOING YOGA
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]
|
|
|
| A lot of people say they 'do yoga' but I want to make the point that
it is not possible to 'do yoga' since yoga is a state of mind. To
quote "Yogah Citta Vritti Nirodah" (Yoga Sutras: 1.2)
Yoga is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind (so that the self
can dwell in its own splendour). Hence one can practise yoga techniques
which ultimately may lead you to the state of yoga and really when once
in this state, are the practises relevant anymore?
It is through the practice that yoga can be known.
| |
|
| yes, but....
yoga is not just the sum of yoga techniques
when you talk about practice what do you mean?
- a group of techniques done, during a certain timetable
- the way you live your life
| |
|
| On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:35:57 -0800, Hil <hil_davies@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of people say they 'do yoga' but I want to make the point that
> it is not possible to 'do yoga' since yoga is a state of mind. To
> quote "Yogah Citta Vritti Nirodah" (Yoga Sutras: 1.2)
> Yoga is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind (so that the self
> can dwell in its own splendour). Hence one can practise yoga techniques
> which ultimately may lead you to the state of yoga and really when once
> in this state, are the practises relevant anymore?
> It is through the practice that yoga can be known.
>
As I think you know, when most people say that they have been "doing yoga"
they mean that they have been practising the asanas of hatha yoga (and
perhaps a bit more, in some cases). I've been practising the asanas and
also using Raja Yoga meditation techniques, and doing other things
associated with yoga. I make no claims about samadhi, liberation, or
realization (which may or may not be part of the total picture). As a
shorthand I say that I've been "doing yoga" for 38 years. No one I know
has a problem with this verbal shorthand. Do you? If so, why? (Hopefully
not for the sake of pedantry, which doesn't seem to be part of the yoga
ideal.) Maybe just to generate discussion?
--Don
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yogabare
| |
|
|
Don wrote:
> As I think you know, when most people say that they have been "doing yoga"
> they mean that they have been practising the asanas of hatha yoga (and
> perhaps a bit more, in some cases). I've been practising the asanas and
> also using Raja Yoga meditation techniques, and doing other things
> associated with yoga. I make no claims about samadhi, liberation, or
> realization (which may or may not be part of the total picture). As a
do you think you make no claims?
(mind work)
or
perhaps you make those claims, but you are not aware of it?
(soul)
perhaps your mind doesn't claim,..... but your soul does....
> shorthand I say that I've been "doing yoga" for 38 years. No one I know
> has a problem with this verbal shorthand. Do you? If so, why? (Hopefully
> not for the sake of pedantry, which doesn't seem to be part of the yoga
> ideal.) Maybe just to generate discussion?
>
> --Don
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yogabare
| |
| Harsha Jawale 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Hi,
There are lot of aspect of yoga (8 I think)
Is it possible to follow them at a time.. or is it like that we have to
achieve one after another....
Can you please explain in short. I do some poses mostly taught in classes.
Thanks,
Harsha
"moon" <moon_lune_lua@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1140217412.940741.99510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
>
> do you think you make no claims?
> (mind work)
> or
> perhaps you make those claims, but you are not aware of it?
> (soul)
>
> perhaps your mind doesn't claim,..... but your soul does....
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
Harsha Jawale wrote:
> Hi,
> There are lot of aspect of yoga (8 I think)
> Is it possible to follow them at a time.. or is it like that we have to
> achieve one after another....
> Can you please explain in short. I do some poses mostly taught in classes.
>
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
a good question...
if you're going to ask that to other yoga practicioners, each of them
would give you a diferent answer...and this is simply because there are
many paths... any person is diferent.
the ultimate goal of yoga (if there is a goal), as any holistic
discipline, is to reach the state of enlightment. in this way yoga
would be just one path, among others....
but still i can give my humble opinion about the subject...
what i was trying to say is our soul wants to reach enlightment,
but...we can't say that we want to reach enlightment, because that is
mind's work...
if our mind establish it as a goal, it will work as a blockage, and we
wont go nowhere...
it looks like a paradox , but it isn't...
from my point of view, the best way to deal with it, is to have it in
mind, but not as a goal.
or, in other words
to know which direction to follow, and have the will to follow that
direction....
when you say there is the 8 limbs of yoga, IMO it means we could be
following them any time (not waiting for the next step)
but
the way we are following them, depends on our degree of evolution...
we may just have them in mind, otherwise we may be fighting against our
nature, which will work as blockage..
one day, perhaps, we may reach a state that, without fighting against
our nature, they will come naturally...
http://www.dailyreadings.com/ys2-3.htm
| |
| Dave K 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
Hil wrote:
> A lot of people say they 'do yoga' but I want to make the point that
> it is not possible to 'do yoga' since yoga is a state of mind. To
> quote "Yogah Citta Vritti Nirodah" (Yoga Sutras: 1.2)
> Yoga is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind (so that the self
> can dwell in its own splendour). Hence one can practise yoga techniques
> which ultimately may lead you to the state of yoga and really when once
> in this state, are the practises relevant anymore?
> It is through the practice that yoga can be known.
This is silly and kind of elitest. If people do asanas and they say
they do yoga, then let them.
| |
|
| On 2006-02-18 11:18:12 -0800, "Harsha Jawale" <harsha.jawale@cox.net> said:
> Hi,
> There are lot of aspect of yoga (8 I think)
> Is it possible to follow them at a time.. or is it like that we have to
> achieve one after another....
> Can you please explain in short. I do some poses mostly taught in classes.
>
> Thanks,
> Harsha
The 8 limbs constitute more of a circle than a ladder.
It is possible to mix and match them. Thus when one practices asana,
one still keeps awareness of pranayama(energy,breath); an attitude of
pratyahar (detachement); and of course dharana (concentration) on the
asana itself. Underlying everything is the practice of the yamas &
niyamas. A focused approach to asana will unveil samadhi.
The same is true for a pranayama practice. Requiring pratyahar as an
attitude, dharana on the breath, asana to support the practice etc.
Or in (dhyana) meditation, where all 8 limbs come into play in the form
of "non-action".
The artful balance of yoga is in exploring the 8 limbs and how they
interact with each other. Not so much a program of 8 levels, but more
a system of 8 actions in which we direct our awareness.
--
~Stu
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy!
Probably the same relation as:
Practicing the piano v. Doing your exercises.
("Exercises" being scales, chords, etc.)
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy moon!
In this sense I think that one practices yoga the same way that people
practice the professions.
A doctor "practices medicine"
An attorney "practices law"
There is a vast universe of information / techniques / methods /
philosophy / wisdom out there and nobody masters it ALL.
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy Harsha!
In a word:
NO!
Everybody is different.
In all the different "aspects of yoga" there is something (or some
combination
of things) that will work for anybody who practices yoga.
Not everything will work for everybody.
MOF: some of it is contradictory.
| |
|
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy moon!
>
> In this sense I think that one practices yoga the same way that people
> practice the professions.
>
> A doctor "practices medicine"
> An attorney "practices law"
>
Howdy...Dave!
so
you vote for:
"the way you live your life "
> There is a vast universe of information / techniques / methods /
> philosophy / wisdom out there and nobody masters it ALL.
come on...
nobody? it's rare.... but must be someone....at least patanjali...no?
| |
|
|
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| re: Not everything will work for everybody...
e.g.;
Bhakti yoga,
Karma yoga &
Jnana yoga
If I remember correctly, a person can practice any two of the three
methods above.
If they attempt to practice all three they will be contradicting
themselves.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
moon wrote:
> http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yo...s.htm#sutra2.30
>
> here's a nice example given by Desikachar (the [D]), when Truth can be
> sacrified...
>
the example seems a poor one to me.
the person will find out the disease is terminal eventually.
so it is not a matter of if you tell the person but how you tell them.
how to let the know in such a way that the info is not unecessarily
destablizing.
how to tell them in a helpful manner such that the person can accept
the info and get on with wrapping up the loose ends.
just from experience with any unpalatable topic, it can be approached
in a gradual manner, work up to the telling slowly, allowing time to
adjust to it incrementally as opposed to taking the bat and giving one
quick whollop.
> from my point of view we may sometimes have to sacrifice ahimsa, to
> reach truth... all depends on the situations...
yes, any interogator/torturer knows that.
but seriously, I am not getting what you mean here, can you give an
exact example and show how and where the non-violence and truth are in
conflict and so one must be sacrificed.
| |
|
|
| Harsha Jawale 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Hi Dave,
you said, Yoga is about discovering the truth for YOURSELF!
I certainly say that yoga made me better, cool person. My abilities
expanded. etc. Better relations
But what you guys say... like achieving goal or enlightment ... is it
possible for common person like me? I mean sometime I can't even resist to
have pizza. Sometimes, I think all these things are gift, e.g. some one gets
beautiful face by God, like that these things are gifted.
So why bother?
Am I right? or what is that I am missing? should I practice more?
"howdydave" <howdydave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1140360412.477709.142860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> re: Not everything will work for everybody...
>
> e.g.;
> Bhakti yoga,
> Karma yoga &
> Jnana yoga
>
> If I remember correctly, a person can practice any two of the three
> methods above.
> If they attempt to practice all three they will be contradicting
> themselves.
>
| |
| NBennett 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| i have no problem with your shorthand, don.
i do yoga too.
nancy
>
> As I think you know, when most people say that they have been "doing yoga"
> they mean that they have been practising the asanas of hatha yoga (and
> perhaps a bit more, in some cases). I've been practising the asanas and
> also using Raja Yoga meditation techniques, and doing other things
> associated with yoga. I make no claims about samadhi, liberation, or
> realization (which may or may not be part of the total picture). As a
> shorthand I say that I've been "doing yoga" for 38 years. No one I know
> has a problem with this verbal shorthand. Do you? If so, why? (Hopefully
> not for the sake of pedantry, which doesn't seem to be part of the yoga
> ideal.) Maybe just to generate discussion?
>
> --Don
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yogabare
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
moon wrote:
> yes, just follow this topic. mainly the posts between Omjaroo and me:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/al...c8ec56e195fc188
I still do not see it.
How is expecting honest and integrity out of those around you a
violation of ahimsa? How is that violence? I understand that being in
the postition of the truth finder, truth teller, in such a case would
take courage, but how is keeping the criminals from continuing harming
others a violation of ahimsa?
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| howdydave wrote:
> re: Not everything will work for everybody...
>
> e.g.;
> Bhakti yoga,
> Karma yoga &
> Jnana yoga
>
> If I remember correctly, a person can practice any two of the three
> methods above.
> If they attempt to practice all three they will be contradicting
> themselves.
I disagree.
the co-ordination, union, of head (Jnana), heart (Bhakti), and hand
(Karma) is essential to Yoga practice, success, as well as a happy life
in general.
of course as per an individual's nature, there will naturally be an
inclination towards or facility in one aspect of yoga.
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy h...!
Are you talking about following a yogic path or "dabbleing" in the
different disciplines?
Instead of calling it "head, heart and hand" (i.e. dabbling) I would
call it:
Dedication to a life of devotion (heart)
v.
Dedication to a life of action/works (hand)
v.
Dedication to a life of obtaining knowledge (head.)
I can't think of a single person who was a practitioner of all three
disciplines!
I would be delighted if you could point one out and prove me to be
wrong (we learn from our mistakes!)
| |
|
| >How is expecting honest and integrity out of those around you a
>violation of ahimsa? How is that violence? I understand that being in
>the postition of the truth finder, truth teller, in such a case would
>take courage, but how is keeping the criminals from continuing harming
>others a violation of ahimsa?
it depends on how we qualify ahimsa...
does someone who performs a fradudulent activity, "with a smile",
violating ahimsa?
does someone who performs a fradudulent activity, presses a person that
should be controlling is activities, violating ahimsa? (always with a
smile...)
etc
from this point of view who violates ahimsa, are the ones who are
untruth?
because by being untruth they make everyone suffer? the ones that
suffer the consequences of their fraud, or the ones that have in charge
to control?
from this point of view sarcasm and hypocrisi will be qualified as
violation of ahimsa?
---
and now if we talked about something more subtle....
if some managerhas got a friend, or a son's friend, an incompetent
one...and pretends to put him as manager in a company... the result of
this action will make many people suffer...
who is violating ahimsa? the incompetent? (who blames everyone because
doesn't know what is doing?) who put him that job?
(note that in those cases who is qualified as violating ahimsa are
never those guys: are always the ones who suffer his consequence....)
what is incompetence? lack of awareness? could be qualified as
violation of ahimsa?
-----
you see... my problem here is, if we are qualifiing ahimsa in such an
indirect way, could we be able to say there's a violation of ahimsa?
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy h...!
>
> Are you talking about following a yogic path or "dabbleing" in the
> different disciplines?
>
> Instead of calling it "head, heart and hand" (i.e. dabbling) I would
> call it:
>
> Dedication to a life of devotion (heart)
> v.
> Dedication to a life of action/works (hand)
> v.
> Dedication to a life of obtaining knowledge (head.)
>
> I can't think of a single person who was a practitioner of all three
> disciplines!
> I would be delighted if you could point one out and prove me to be
> wrong (we learn from our mistakes!)
Yes of course I am referring to doing as opposed to dabbling.
I would further clarify your definitions,
In all three of Bhakti, Karma and Jnana Yoga, the emphasis is properly
placed on yoga, not the means.
such that, one whose primary focus is Bhakti yoga is dedicated to YOGA
using the vehicle of devotion.
similarily, the Karma Yogi is dedicated to YOGA using the vehicle of
action. Here as well the action is not simply selfless service without
expectation of return (for that you can join the Peace Corps) but more
exactly actions are performed with the results offered to the supreme
Be-ing, the ground out of which we are all momentary localized
manifestations.
Ditto in the same vein for Jnana, the emphasis in not on knowledge, but
on yoga, with knowledge of the ways and means leading to yoga. That
knowledge may be as basic as knowing which asanas are best suited to
your individual physical and psychological make up, practice of which
aids the movement towards yoga.
You can love that woman all you want
but it is ignorant infatuation if you do not actually know anything
real about her. It still comes to naught if your professed devotion is
not manifest in action, action based on knowledge of what will bring
you closer to her.
I know numerous yogis, tantrics every one of them, who practice all
three to varying degrees, depending on their individual nature. None of
their names would mean anything to you as they are not in any books.
By placing the emphasis on YOGA, the desire for union, rather than the
tools used, I find that Bhakti, Karma and Jnana yoga are complimentary.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
moon wrote:
>
> it depends on how we qualify ahimsa...
>
> does someone who performs a fradudulent activity, "with a smile",
> violating ahimsa?
> does someone who performs a fradudulent activity, presses a person that
> should be controlling is activities, violating ahimsa? (always with a
> smile...)
>
> etc
>
> from this point of view who violates ahimsa, are the ones who are
> untruth?
> because by being untruth they make everyone suffer? the ones that
> suffer the consequences of their fraud, or the ones that have in charge
> to control?
>
> from this point of view sarcasm and hypocrisi will be qualified as
> violation of ahimsa?
>
> ---
> and now if we talked about something more subtle....
> if some managerhas got a friend, or a son's friend, an incompetent
> one...and pretends to put him as manager in a company... the result of
> this action will make many people suffer...
>
> who is violating ahimsa? the incompetent? (who blames everyone because
> doesn't know what is doing?) who put him that job?
>
> (note that in those cases who is qualified as violating ahimsa are
> never those guys: are always the ones who suffer his consequence....)
>
> what is incompetence? lack of awareness? could be qualified as
> violation of ahimsa?
>
> -----
> you see... my problem here is, if we are qualifiing ahimsa in such an
> indirect way, could we be able to say there's a violation of ahimsa?
ok.
agreed, there can be different levels of ahimsa, and if one follows the
links up the chain of command often those directing the harm are very
far removed from the actual doing.,, the foot soldiers doing the actual
killing may be ignorant of the real reasons they are in the killing
field.
but what does all this have to do with sacrificing adherance to ahimsa
for the sake of truth
just to recap,
you mentioned that sometimes ahimsa must be sacrifised for truth.
I asked for an example.
you directed me to another thread, mostly chat between Omjaroo and
yourself. The only thing in that conversation that, to me, was any sort
of example was the indication by you that you had been involved as an
investigator into financial fraud similar to the WorldCom affair. but
no indication was made as to how you had to sacrifice ahimsa for the
sake of truth
If I missed something in the thread please cut and paste it so I "get"
it.
| |
|
|
hbkta@aol.com wrote:
> ok.
> agreed, there can be different levels of ahimsa, and if one follows the
> links up the chain of command often those directing the harm are very
> far removed from the actual doing.,, the foot soldiers doing the actual
> killing may be ignorant of the real reasons they are in the killing
> field.
>
> but what does all this have to do with sacrificing adherance to ahimsa
> for the sake of truth
>
> just to recap,
> you mentioned that sometimes ahimsa must be sacrifised for truth.
> I asked for an example.
> you directed me to another thread, mostly chat between Omjaroo and
> yourself. The only thing in that conversation that, to me, was any sort
> of example was the indication by you that you had been involved as an
> investigator into financial fraud similar to the WorldCom affair. but
> no indication was made as to how you had to sacrifice ahimsa for the
> sake of truth
> If I missed something in the thread please cut and paste it so I "get"
> it.
perhaps, i didn't enter into the details deliberately. the case isn't
as famous as worldcom but is known in the public opinion
has reached some sort of a peacefull status but from my point of view
the seed is still there and therefore isn't resolved yet
anyway, i could give a few hints that could appear in any such case. as
the methods used inside those wars are similiar everywhere...
suppose you enter in a state of general confusion where most guys with
some kind of power are doing the "show of" game, no one resolves in
fact any problem... in the end, most of them are good guys, the only
fault they have is an enourmous lack of awareness and an enourmous
pride of having a good job with lots of power...in the middle of it,
the "bright consultants" (from famous international companys), that
never resolve any problem....
and then there are some powerless guys, who wants to resolve the
problems, in fact (not the "show of" game), reach the truth...work
well....
you're pressed by everyone, every big guy inside the isntitutution,
external auditors, etc. Everyone presses to receive a "good work" and
"in time".
Suppose also that you've reported on and on, the bad conditions you
were working, and no one cared, and explained bit by bit the way
problems should be resolved to work well and fast, and no one
cared....And they didn't care, why?... because in fact, who deals with
it has no awareness (the incompetent "yes men"),...and the "show of
game" doesn't understand the importance of controling information....
suppose something bad appears...who is in charge to report it? with
good detail and in time? under those conditions, you'll be in a endless
paradox...
or you report in time a bad work
or you report a good work whenever it will be ready
suppose also that when something bad appears, the bad guys (whom in the
end are not many...), pretend hurry you up to deliver
information....because,...in that way you don't investigate much..
and at the same time by doing it in a hurry, you coud comit some
mistakes...and by comiting those mistakes, you're been identifyed as an
incompetent....and they could get away....
(but i won't say much more)
----
just to say.. in the end i was fighting for "Truth" and trying to do it
with my own tempo...
in other words, not obeying direct and verbal (not written) orders of
doing it quickly....
the confusion generated the famous blame game, i was yelling to someone
(trying to release from pressure) or blaming some incompetent "yes
man"...
(which was useless because they always get away, they always are good
soft speakers...)- i was qualified as agressive
after that i asked to do another type of work..., now, some yes man is
in charge with that work....
perhaps the Truth wants to be found under the theory of chaos...with so
much incompetence and lousy work,.. who knows?....
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy h...!
Very well put!
The only apparant difference of opinion is that I
also consider yoga itself to be a "means."
To further your "tools" analagy...
While Bhakti, Karma and Jnana are all tools
"Yoga" is the toolbox.
The objective is not the toolbox, but what
we are making with the tools we take from it.
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
To me you are absolutely right...But please remember that everybody has
a different TARGET!, If the TARGET of some person is YOGA only, no
matter what is it for ,or if this is a tool of hitting,he does not
care...His TARGET is not to hit, to have the hammer.
It is like a child having to posses a hammer ,a hammer that his dady is
using very often..So his target is to have the hammer, he gets it but
he does not know what to do with it... Because he is a child, he will
learn it very soon...
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy h...!
>
> Very well put!
>
> The only apparant difference of opinion is that I
> also consider yoga itself to be a "means."
>
> To further your "tools" analagy...
> While Bhakti, Karma and Jnana are all tools
> "Yoga" is the toolbox.
>
> The objective is not the toolbox, but what
> we are making with the tools we take from it.
I agree.
to be noted, the word yoga is generally used in several senses.
to refer to the practices, or tools, the means
as well as in reference to that which one aims to make, acheive,
realize, with the tools.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
moon wrote:
> hbkta@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> perhaps, i didn't enter into the details deliberately. the case isn't
> as famous as worldcom but is known in the public opinion
> has reached some sort of a peacefull status but from my point of view
> the seed is still there and therefore isn't resolved yet
>
> anyway, i could give a few hints that could appear in any such case. as
> the methods used inside those wars are similiar everywhere...
>
> suppose you enter in a state of general confusion where most guys with
> some kind of power are doing the "show of" game, no one resolves in
> fact any problem... in the end, most of them are good guys, the only
> fault they have is an enourmous lack of awareness and an enourmous
> pride of having a good job with lots of power...in the middle of it,
> the "bright consultants" (from famous international companys), that
> never resolve any problem....
> and then there are some powerless guys, who wants to resolve the
> problems, in fact (not the "show of" game), reach the truth...work
> well....
> you're pressed by everyone, every big guy inside the isntitutution,
> external auditors, etc. Everyone presses to receive a "good work" and
> "in time".
>
> Suppose also that you've reported on and on, the bad conditions you
> were working, and no one cared, and explained bit by bit the way
> problems should be resolved to work well and fast, and no one
> cared....And they didn't care, why?... because in fact, who deals with
> it has no awareness (the incompetent "yes men"),...and the "show of
> game" doesn't understand the importance of controling information....
>
> suppose something bad appears...who is in charge to report it? with
> good detail and in time? under those conditions, you'll be in a endless
> paradox...
> or you report in time a bad work
> or you report a good work whenever it will be ready
>
> suppose also that when something bad appears, the bad guys (whom in the
> end are not many...), pretend hurry you up to deliver
> information....because,...in that way you don't investigate much..
> and at the same time by doing it in a hurry, you coud comit some
> mistakes...and by comiting those mistakes, you're been identifyed as an
> incompetent....and they could get away....
>
> (but i won't say much more)
> ----
> just to say.. in the end i was fighting for "Truth" and trying to do it
> with my own tempo...
> in other words, not obeying direct and verbal (not written) orders of
> doing it quickly....
> the confusion generated the famous blame game, i was yelling to someone
> (trying to release from pressure) or blaming some incompetent "yes
> man"...
> (which was useless because they always get away, they always are good
> soft speakers...)- i was qualified as agressive
>
Thanks Moon,
now I have an idea of what you are saying.
For myself, if I find myself in situation that is frustrating and
preasure seems to be getting too much, violation of ahimsa is near the
end of a long line of forgetting the yamas and niyamas.
for myself, if I can maintain Brahmacharya, the rest of the yamas and
niyamas seem to follow almost effortlessly by themselves. Here I am
using meaning of Brahmacharya as derived more from linguistic meaning
of the term, which is loosely--- Only Brahma-- as opposed to its more
commonly used meaning of celebacy. So Brahmacharya means maintaining
constant ideation that everything is Brahma, ... very difficult to
become angry while maintaining ideation of Brahmacharya.
brahmacharya supports Isvarypranidan, surrender to the Supreme
Consciousness,
supports soucha, contentment, etc.
> after that i asked to do another type of work..., now, some yes man is
> in charge with that work....
> perhaps the Truth wants to be found under the theory of chaos...with so
> much incompetence and lousy work,.. who knows?....
| |
|
|
hbkta@aol.com wrote:
>
> Thanks Moon,
> now I have an idea of what you are saying.
> For myself, if I find myself in situation that is frustrating and
> preasure seems to be getting too much, violation of ahimsa is near the
> end of a long line of forgetting the yamas and niyamas.
> for myself, if I can maintain Brahmacharya, the rest of the yamas and
> niyamas seem to follow almost effortlessly by themselves. Here I am
> using meaning of Brahmacharya as derived more from linguistic meaning
> of the term, which is loosely--- Only Brahma-- as opposed to its more
> commonly used meaning of celebacy. So Brahmacharya means maintaining
> constant ideation that everything is Brahma, ... very difficult to
> become angry while maintaining ideation of Brahmacharya.
> brahmacharya supports Isvarypranidan, surrender to the Supreme
> Consciousness,
> supports soucha, contentment, etc.
>
>
Hi hbk..
if we see the 8 path of yoga as whole, integrated... violating one, may
have as consuequence the violation of the others....
i always see truth as the main one (the capital one), as we are all
going towards Truth, which in the end will be God, Supreme
Consciousnes, etc
if someone lacks awareness of the Truth, due to cowardness or by the an
active ability to betray Truth (crime or fraudulent activities), they
all are causing suffering to the other souls, and in this way they are
violating ahimsa.
In other words, who is far way from Truth will be violating ahimsa,
even if is doing it with a fake smile....
even that sense of obvious cowardness will be a violation of
ahimsa....a policeman that sees a crime being comitted (while someone
is suffering) and runs away, is violating ahimsa....is this sense who
doesn't stand for Truth, either the criminals or the coward policeman
is violating ahimsa...and the policeman by not acting will be letting
criminals to do more and more crimes....
now,....if the policeman is not coward...if he feels the need to fire
the gun...and kills a criminal...is that a violation of
ahimsa?...(perhaps not)...we should understand the feelings of the
policeman while he was firing the gun...he was aware that what he was
doing would lead to peace and stop the suffering of inocents?...
from my point of view, who starts violence (or suffering), is whom is
violating ahimsa... even if is doing it as a result of cowardness to
face Truth (wiht the fake smile).
Who re-acts, is violating ahimsa? even if is trying to protect himself
or others from suffering?.....
| |
| howdydave 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
| Howdy h...!
Being a technical writer I just couldn't resist this bit of "bait"
that you are dangling in front of me!
I've usually seen them differentiated with a 'y' and "Y" (capital)
"yoga" being the means
"Yoga" being the objective.
You know what us technical writers are like.... 
Dave
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-02-25, 9:33 pm |
|
moon wrote:
> hbkta@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi hbk..
>
> if we see the 8 path of yoga as whole, integrated... violating one, may
> have as consuequence the violation of the others....
>
of course,
> i always see truth as the main one (the capital one), as we are all
> going towards Truth, which in the end will be God, Supreme
> Consciousnes, etc
>
In sanskrit there are several words denoting "truth",
from Subha's'ita Sam'graha,The intuitional science of the vedas, part 2
"People generally use four words, Satya, Tothya, Samyak and Rta
synonymously or in an identical sense. But in reality there is a great
difference in
their meanings. The English equivalents of Tathya, Samyak and Rta are
'Fact', 'Correct', and 'Truth' respectively. But in other languages
'Satya"
(Truth) has no equivalent. The Philosophical meaning of the word
'Satya', is
unchangeable, i.e., that which has no distortion, that which is beyond
distinctions
of time, space, and person. Human life progresses through different
stages --
from childhood to adolescence, from adolescence to youth, youth to old
age
and old age to senility. It is through these changes that people
progress.
That is why human life or its receptacle, the body, is not Satya' or
Truth. There
is yet another philosophical meaning of the word, 'Satya', which is
Citsvaru'pa (the Supreme consciousness) or Purus'a. In the field of
Sa'dhana' or
intuitional practice the meaning of 'Satya' is 'Parahit'artham'
va'unmanaso
yatha'rthatvam' satyam i.e., Satya is the benevolent use of words and
the mind for the
welfare of others."
> if someone lacks awareness of the Truth, due to cowardness or by the an
> active ability to betray Truth (crime or fraudulent activities), they
> all are causing suffering to the other souls, and in this way they are
> violating ahimsa.
> In other words, who is far way from Truth will be violating ahimsa,
> even if is doing it with a fake smile....
> even that sense of obvious cowardness will be a violation of
> ahimsa....a policeman that sees a crime being comitted (while someone
> is suffering) and runs away, is violating ahimsa....is this sense who
> doesn't stand for Truth, either the criminals or the coward policeman
> is violating ahimsa...and the policeman by not acting will be letting
> criminals to do more and more crimes....
yes
> now,....if the policeman is not coward...if he feels the need to fire
> the gun...and kills a criminal...is that a violation of
> ahimsa?...(perhaps not)...we should understand the feelings of the
> policeman while he was firing the gun...he was aware that what he was
> doing would lead to peace and stop the suffering of inocents?...
>
> from my point of view, who starts violence (or suffering), is whom is
> violating ahimsa... even if is doing it as a result of cowardness to
> face Truth (wiht the fake smile).
>
sure
> Who re-acts, is violating ahimsa? even if is trying to protect himself
> or others from suffering?.....
if reacting out of mind disturbed with frustration and anger etc, then
yes that is also violation of ahimsa, if only a violation against
oneself. Such disturbances and thier effects can be felt in the nerves
and glandsand hang over into meditation.
|
| |
|
|