Anyone been following the to-do over in alt.suicide.holiday?

A couple of things interesting to me here.

One, is all the hoopla concerning usenet (internet groups) and are
these groups responsible for causing people's behavior. Duh..

Actually some of the responses, to the blame game being plied by the
parents and the media, are among the most lucid, realistic and
pro-personal responsibility I have seen anywhere on usenet or in the
media. These harken back to the days when people talked about freedom,
responsibility and self-determination and other nostalgic notions on
which my country (USA) was founded.

Two, is the sheer volume of posts to that group right about now. 1 or 2
per minute (looks like) each with up to 50+, responses. I have never
seen anything like it in the 15+ years I've been around here. Wow!

And three, on the subject of suicide from a yogic point of view. Where
ever you leave off this time around, is where you are going to start up
next time. Seems pointless to end it early, so this is what keeps me
chugging along in life :-)

o
^

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

omjaroo wrote:

> Anyone been following the to-do over in alt.suicide.holiday?

Went over to have a look just now. It's awful that some people are in so
much pain as to want to kill themselves. I have a neighbour who
sometimes wants to kill himself. I still have the rope he once showed me
with which he was about to hang himself. I took it away from him, but
I've been told that he has another rope now, which he hasn't showed me.

I sit and talk to him sometimes, and often he cheers up a bit, promising
to postpone any suicide attempts.

> A couple of things interesting to me here.
>
> One, is all the hoopla concerning usenet (internet groups) and are
> these groups responsible for causing people's behavior. Duh..
>
> Actually some of the responses, to the blame game being plied by the
> parents and the media, are among the most lucid, realistic and
> pro-personal responsibility I have seen anywhere on usenet or in the
> media. These harken back to the days when people talked about freedom,
> responsibility and self-determination and other nostalgic notions on
> which my country (USA) was founded.
>
> Two, is the sheer volume of posts to that group right about now. 1 or 2
> per minute (looks like) each with up to 50+, responses. I have never
> seen anything like it in the 15+ years I've been around here. Wow!
>
> And three, on the subject of suicide from a yogic point of view. Where
> ever you leave off this time around, is where you are going to start up
> next time. Seems pointless to end it early, so this is what keeps me
> chugging along in life :-)

Over in alt.zen a debate between the regular denizens of said ng and
some people who present themselves as followers of Dr. Fred Lenz a.k.a.
Rama, is currently raging. Rama seems to have killed himself by drugging
himself and then going for a swim, wearing the collar of one of his
dogs. He also tried to kill his dogs and one of his girlfriends at the
occasion of his suicide, it seems.

The regulars of az view these circumstances as evidence that Rama wasn't
much of a guru after all. The Ramaites, however, seem to believe that
there was nothing untoward or odd in the manner of their leader's
passing.

From a yogic point of view, the only thing that comes close to
discussing suicide would be one of the siddhis mentioned by Patanjali,
namely:

Yoga Sutras III.40: "By conquering the current called Udana, the yogi
does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk on thorns etc., and can
die at will."

It does seem that Rama died at will. Yet, at the same time, he did sink
in water. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't care to join his
cult, seeing that those of his followers who post on usenet have turned
out to be quite angry and miserable creatures. (Some believe they aren't
really followers of Rama, but just pose as such to discredit his
movement. Who knows?)

S.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

hi.

> Yoga Sutras III.40: "By conquering the current called Udana, the yogi
> does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk on thorns etc., and can
> die at will."
actually, in the indian mythos,
ichchamarana is one of those fabled powers
of great men and divine people.
this does *not* mean suicide.
it means holding on to life
despite great pain etc.
generally till some sort of task is completed.
then the determination is gone, and they die a natural death.

examples are the warrior bhishma in mahabharatha and even the buddha.

-v

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

vishvas wrote:

> hi.
> 
[vbcol=seagreen]
> actually, in the indian mythos,
> ichchamarana is one of those fabled powers
> of great men and divine people.
> this does *not* mean suicide.
> it means holding on to life
> despite great pain etc.
> generally till some sort of task is completed.
> then the determination is gone, and they die a natural death.
>
> examples are the warrior bhishma in mahabharatha and even the buddha.
>
> -v

That was interesting information. I haven't seen it explained quite like
that in any commentary on that sutra. Swami Vivekananda simply says that
the yogi "can depart his life whenever he likes." What you say should be
mentioned in the commentary, perhaps. Thank you. Personally, I've taken
it to mean that the yogi can die at will after his karma is spent, so he
won't have to live any longer than what's necessary.

The Sanskrit phrase "udana-jayat-jala-panka-kantaka-adishu asanga
utkrantis-ca" is supposed to mean the same as "By conquering the current
called Udana, the yogi does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk
on thorns etc., and can die at will". But does it, really?

I found that line at:

http://www.rainbowbody.net/HeartMind/Yogasutra3.htm

S.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

hi.
> The Sanskrit phrase "udana-jayat-jala-panka-kantaka-adishu asanga
> utkrantis-ca" is supposed to mean the same as "By conquering the current
> called Udana, the yogi does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk
> on thorns etc., and can die at will". But does it, really?

actually, it approximately means:

(udana-jayat)
having conquered udana,
(jala-panka-kantaka-adishu )
in water, air, thorns etc.
(asanga utkrantis-ca)
without help, there is thriving.

my sanskrit is a bit rusty;
however there is no mention of "death on wish".
neither is it implied.
also, to me, thriving in the midst of water, air, thorns
etc. means a great immovable mind (or non-ego)
(like those hard forest monks and mountain ascetics);
nothing mystical or magical.

however there are those that would draw
strange and magical interpretions for their
spiritual business and
make their livelihood out of the superstitions of others.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

vishvas wrote:

> hi. 
>
> actually, it approximately means:
>
> (udana-jayat)
> having conquered udana,
> (jala-panka-kantaka-adishu )
> in water, air, thorns etc.
> (asanga utkrantis-ca)
> without help, there is thriving.
>
> my sanskrit is a bit rusty;
> however there is no mention of "death on wish".
> neither is it implied.

That's as I suspected. But now I have a very disturbing question to
answer for myself: Did Swami Vivekananda, whom I greatly revere, make a
serious mistake or work from a flawed copy when he added that, or is it
the website version that is flawed? I'll have to transliterate the
Sanskrit version translated by Vivekananda before I can make a better
comparison. And I am sure my Sanskrit is far more rusty than yours. :-(

> also, to me, thriving in the midst of water, air, thorns
> etc. means a great immovable mind (or non-ego)
> (like those hard forest monks and mountain ascetics);
> nothing mystical or magical.

Yes, that makes sense.

> however there are those that would draw
> strange and magical interpretions for their
> spiritual business and
> make their livelihood out of the superstitions of others.

I think Vivekananda was above most superstitions. If he did add it, I'd
like to believe he had some better reason for doing so.

Thanks for your help.

S.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

> That's as I suspected. But now I have a very disturbing question to
> answer for myself: Did Swami Vivekananda, whom I greatly revere, make a
> serious mistake or work from a flawed copy when he added that, or is it
> the website version that is flawed?
well. vivekananda was a hindu propogandist.
spicing things up was in his interest.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:48:55 GMT, Sevenhundred Elves
<sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:

>vishvas wrote:
> 
> 
>
>That was interesting information. I haven't seen it explained quite like
>that in any commentary on that sutra. Swami Vivekananda simply says that
>the yogi "can depart his life whenever he likes." What you say should be
>mentioned in the commentary, perhaps. Thank you. Personally, I've taken
>it to mean that the yogi can die at will after his karma is spent, so he
>won't have to live any longer than what's necessary.
>
>The Sanskrit phrase "udana-jayat-jala-panka-kantaka-adishu asanga
>utkrantis-ca" is supposed to mean the same as "By conquering the current
>called Udana, the yogi does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk
>on thorns etc., and can die at will". But does it, really?
>
>I found that line at:
>
>http://www.rainbowbody.net/HeartMind/Yogasutra3.htm
>
>S.

Will and the powers of will are the mirages of ordinary
living.  To bend the world to one's wishes seems attractive.
But if everyone did it they'd each need a world of their own.
Hardly practical.  Talk of will reinforces the excesses of ego,
and feeds the greed that enslaves us to our own impotence.

Rather than conquering the world by will (an enormous and
unending enterprise), why not will what the world wills?
Then one could be in constant agreement and at peace.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> omjaroo wrote:
> 
>
> Went over to have a look just now. It's awful that some people are in so
> much pain as to want to kill themselves. I have a neighbour who
> sometimes wants to kill himself. I still have the rope he once showed me
> with which he was about to hang himself. I took it away from him, but
> I've been told that he has another rope now, which he hasn't showed me.
>
> I sit and talk to him sometimes, and often he cheers up a bit, promising
> to postpone any suicide attempts.
> 
>
> Over in alt.zen a debate between the regular denizens of said ng and
> some people who present themselves as followers of Dr. Fred Lenz a.k.a.
> Rama, is currently raging. Rama seems to have killed himself by drugging
> himself and then going for a swim, wearing the collar of one of his
> dogs.

Not a dog-collar of the vicar type?

>He also tried to kill his dogs and one of his girlfriends at the
> occasion of his suicide, it seems.
>
> The regulars of az view these circumstances as evidence that Rama wasn't
> much of a guru after all. The Ramaites, however, seem to believe that
> there was nothing untoward or odd in the manner of their leader's
> passing.
>
> From a yogic point of view, the only thing that comes close to
> discussing suicide would be one of the siddhis mentioned by Patanjali,
> namely:
>
> Yoga Sutras III.40: "By conquering the current called Udana, the yogi
> does not sink in water or in swamps, he can walk on thorns etc., and can
> die at will."
>
> It does seem that Rama died at will. Yet, at the same time, he did sink
> in water. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't care to join his
> cult, seeing that those of his followers who post on usenet have turned
> out to be quite angry and miserable creatures. (Some believe they aren't
> really followers of Rama, but just pose as such to discredit his
> movement. Who knows?)
>

In either case they are doing a good job of trashing his
legacy  (for what it was worth.)

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Keynes wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:48:55 GMT, Sevenhundred Elves
> <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:
> 
>
> Will and the powers of will are the mirages of ordinary
> living.  To bend the world to one's wishes seems attractive.
> But if everyone did it they'd each need a world of their own.
> Hardly practical.  Talk of will reinforces the excesses of ego,
> and feeds the greed that enslaves us to our own impotence.
>
> Rather than conquering the world by will (an enormous and
> unending enterprise), why not will what the world wills?
> Then one could be in constant agreement and at peace.

Yes. Such unison is the goal of yoga; siddhis such as being able to die
at will are just bells and whistles. What bothers me here is the
possibility of a mistranslation (even of a minor passage) by a man who
devoted his life to spreading Vedanta, including the Yoga Sutras.

It bothers me a lot, really. I've always regarded Vivekananda as a
spiritual authority, guru if you will. I carry his words in my heart. I
hope it doesn't turn out that he just added some stuff to the Yoga
Sutras to make them more "mystical". In that case I'll have to do some
heavy work, on so many planes. I have to start doing my own translation,
at least of that passage, asap, which will take quite some time and
effort, since my Sanskrit really sucks. I hope I'm mistaken.

S.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]