quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

Hi Gumpi,

quote:

---

I agree with TMS about Ishvara. Brahman is the non-dual absolute beyond creation and Ishvara is a personal God or being that created and rules the universe but it is not the same as Brahman. I thought most yoga people knew this as a lot of people are introduced to yoga via swami Vivekananda....

In Patanjali, in the "powers" section, there is a sutra about samyama on something to become omniscient. But since Ishvara (God) is one without a second i don't think Patanjali is saying that a person or yogi can become omniscient because it would mean there would be two omniscient beings, which would cancel each other out.

---

If Ishwara (God) is one without a second, and Brahman is something different from God, then wouldn't that make two? Ishwara would have to be one with a second.

Maybe Vivekanada didn't work that one out?

Christi

---

quote:

---

That's odd because selflessness is also the highest moral calling and is synonymous with love. I didn't think it was an advanced notion to be kept away from the uninitiated. I would have thought it was an important goal for everyone.

Can't say I would rely on your history there, Christi. How do you know the Buddha kept anatta from all but his advanced disciples? It's clearly stated in the Pali Canon.

---

quote:

---

The Vendantan view is that GOD as immanent permeates all creation as Brahman, and GOD as transcendent being see outside of Creation as Ishvara. It's the old mind-soul duality in another form. Brahman is GOD as spirit, and Ishvara is GOD as personality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by david_obsidian

Carson said:
How can one ever know that you are understanding something in the "right" way? Hitler probably thought he was seeing things the "right" way, but was he really?

That's the philosophical problem of catastrophic skepticism, isn't it? How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat? What does 'know' mean? At the end of the day, you have to go with what you think is believe, but it's good to use the most reliable means of finding out what is true.

It's possible in principal that someone like Hitler would believe through-and-through that he was right. It so happens though that I doubt that this was the case with the real man. I think Hitler would have had difficulties facing open questioning. Was Hitler entirely honest? I doubt it. All sorts of questions could be asked of him that he probably would not want to answer, or to which he would wish to produce a false answer.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine him on a perfect lie-detector, with the whole country of his time looking on, and you are free to question him. What questions might you ask him that you think might prove to his people that he wasn't being truthful? Are there questions you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust? Are there questiosn that you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust even if you were not allowed to ask him of his plans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

Hi TMS.

quote:

---

The Vendantan view is that GOD as immanent permeates all creation as Brahman, and GOD as transcendent being see outside of Creation as Ishvara. It's the old mind-soul duality in another form. Brahman is GOD as spirit, and Ishvara is GOD as personality.

---

And yet it also says: Sarvam Brahma... all is Brahman alone. Brahman is both immanent and manifest simultaneously. The seeming duality becomes unified, which is of course the purpose of yoga.

Another divine paradox (as Yogani would say). This is why we cannot rely on the mind alone to guide us. The mind is a useful tool, but it is not a capable instrument for understanding the deeper mysteries of life. Effective spiritual practices which develop inner silence, can take you beyond the mind into direct perception of reality.

Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contemplative

A few core issues in his thread need to be addressed.

1) pAtaJjali can not be used to define what yoga is or isn’t. The yoga tradition greatly predates pAtaJjali. Indeed, scholars almost universally agree that the SaDaGgayoga predates pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. It is the SaDaGgayoga tradition that is preserved in Buddhist sources *not* pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. Moreover, the methods used in AYP are derived mostly from then yoga of the nAthasampradAya. The nAthasampradAya likewise emphasizes the SaDaGgayoga not pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. The SaDaGgayoga of the maitrAyaNIyopaniSad and especially the amRtanAdopaniSad are both closer to the SaDaGgayoga of vajrAyAna than pAtaJjali’s aSTAGgayoga. Indeed, the vast majority of Buddhist and Saivite yoga texts which are chronologically later than pAtaJjali exhibit no discernable influence from him. He was a "flash in the pan" of Indic yoga so far as I can tell. For these reasons pAtaJjali is largely irrelevant to any discussion of kuNDalinI in Buddhism here on the AYP forum.

2) Nobody knows what the historical Buddha really said. The nikAya-s are regarded by many scholars as the earliest Buddhist scriptures, but even they were written long after the Buddha’s death.

3) TMS doesn’t get to define what Buddhism is or is not. Even if he had some supernatural ability to know what the “words of the Buddha” actually were, it wouldn’t matter. A religious tradition does not stop evolving and adapting when the founder dies. The theravAda, mahAyAna, and vajrAyAna traditions are all fully legitimate expressions of Buddhism (whether or not TMS wants them to be).

4) Discussions of theism vs. non-theism and other purely philosophical issues are essentially unrelated to kuNDalinIyoga, which concerns a set of reproducible psycho-physiological processes. The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist.

The bottom line is that Buddhism has a highly sophisticated type of kuNDalinIyoga (whether TMS wants it to or not). This yoga is called caNDAlIyoga (or “gtum mo rnal ‘byor” in Tibetan)

Buddhism also has a well-developed system of physical yoga similar to haThayoga called nADivAyuyantra, a system of which is discussed at length in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-T...44692&sr=8-1


Some books describing the *Buddhist* practice of kuNDalinIyoga are listed below.

http://www.amazon.com/Tsongkhapas-Y...it_1_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Yoga...it_2_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Inner-F...it_3_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Yogas-Nar...it_4_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yoga-...it_5_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Light-B...it_6_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Work...it_7_rysdsd0

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contemplative

A few core issues in his thread need to be addressed.

1) pAtaJjali can not be used to define what yoga is or isn’t. The yoga tradition greatly predates pAtaJjali. Indeed, scholars almost universally agree that the SaDaGgayoga predates pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. It is the SaDaGgayoga tradition that is preserved in Buddhist sources *not* pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. Moreover, the methods used in AYP are derived mostly from then yoga of the nAthasampradAya. The nAthasampradAya likewise emphasizes the SaDaGgayoga not pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. The SaDaGgayoga of the maitrAyaNIyopaniSad and especially the amRtanAdopaniSad are both closer to the SaDaGgayoga of vajrAyAna than pAtaJjali’s aSTAGgayoga. Indeed, the vast majority of Buddhist and Saivite yoga texts which are chronologically later than pAtaJjali exhibit no discernable influence from him. He was a "flash in the pan" of Indic yoga so far as I can tell. For these reasons pAtaJjali is largely irrelevant to any discussion of kuNDalinI in Buddhism here on the AYP forum.

2) Nobody knows what the historical Buddha really said. The nikAya-s are regarded by many scholars as the earliest Buddhist scriptures, but even they were written long after the Buddha’s death.

3) TMS doesn’t get to define what Buddhism is or is not. Even if he had some supernatural ability to know what the “words of the Buddha” actually were, it wouldn’t matter. A religious tradition does not stop evolving and adapting when the founder dies. The theravAda, mahAyAna, and vajrAyAna traditions are all fully legitimate expressions of Buddhism (whether or not TMS wants them to be).

4) Discussions of theism vs. non-theism and other purely philosophical issues are essentially unrelated to kuNDalinIyoga, which concerns a set of reproducible psycho-physiological processes. The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist.

The bottom line is that Buddhism has a highly sophisticated type of kuNDalinIyoga (whether TMS wants it to or not). This yoga is called caNDAlIyoga (or “gtum mo rnal ‘byor” in Tibetan)

Buddhism also has a well-developed system of physical yoga similar to haThayoga called nADivAyuyantra, a system of which is discussed at length in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-T...44692&sr=8-1


Some books describing the *Buddhist* practice of kuNDalinIyoga are listed below.

http://www.amazon.com/Tsongkhapas-Y...it_1_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Yoga...it_2_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Inner-F...it_3_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Yogas-Nar...it_4_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yoga-...it_5_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Light-B...it_6_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Work...it_7_rysdsd0

---