|
|
| sivaram:
Jonathan Foust
Sudhir Jonathan Foust, MA, is cofounder of the Mindfulness Training Institute of Washington, D.C., and conducts retreats and seminars that focus on cultivating embodied awareness. He is a senior teacher and former president of Kripalu Center and has practiced yoga and meditation for more than 30 years. A member of the Kripalu ashram from the age of 25, he has led meditation retreats and trained teachers for two decades. Quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Yoga Journal, and other national publications, his recordings include The Art of Relaxation; A Touch of Grace: Bamboo Flute Meditations; and two guided meditation compilations, Energy Awareness and High Energy Living.
|
|
| |
|
|
Thanks! |
|
| |
|
| Hello,
An important distinction is neccesary here.
When one speaks of four yogas, Raja Yoga does not mean Patanjali's eightfold yoga. Raja Yoga in this context is a Yoga of reaching and practicing Samadhi. Even the Hatha Yoga Pradipika defines Raja Yoga as Samadhi.
Patanjali's Yoga eightlimbed Yoga is one kind of Yoga which serves this purpose but it isn't the only one. We have six-limbed Yogas in the Netra Tantra, in the Gorakshapaddhati, in the Maitriyani Upanishad, we have 7-limbed Yoga in the Gherandasamhita, and a lot more. All these are Raja Yoga because they outline how to reach and practice Samadhi.
At other times Raja Yoga might refer to just Patanjali's system, but this is mainly because Patanjali's system is the most popular and well-known well,
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks BelovedOfTheGod for adding this necessary information. Now, I got my missing link which I was trying to get. Many a times, I have some items to say, but I can not completely trace them where they got into my little head. Thanks again.
Since you said this, let me add a little more on the word Raja. Raja is Royal. And, it is Royal because of many supernatural (NOT unnatural) powers (extra ordinary capabilities) which one obtains due to the practice of Rajayoga.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Brother Neel is correct in his thinking even if his explanation is a bit circuitous. Beloved said quite succintly what Neel was trying to say in regards to markets etc. The strange thing is that Sivaram is also very nearly correct in his assertions, at least as far as perceptions are concerned. You have to tip your hat to Mr. Kuhn, no? |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | sivaram - 2005-11-19 11:02 PM
He's leading from Hatha to Raja in one session, which IMHO is a cool approach, but it doesn't fire up some types of students. I also teach along those lines, but with pranayama between the asanas and the meditation. He's using the word Raja as a tag for his style, which I guess is okay if the whole point is to take students through to meditation. Hopefully he's also teaching some principles of the yoga sutra?
i would imagine the talk might focus on some of the sutras?
That style & sequence makes perfect sense to a Sivananda trained teacher. We are taught to relax with internal focus and use of mantra, learning to be aware of the flow of prana during asana practice.
Who is the guy? Do you have any links?
Hi Sivaram,
Who is the "he" in your post above...I guess I lost the thread here, since the post
prior to yours was mentioning BKS Iyengar. I can't imagine that your comments apply
to BKS... |
|
| |
|
| Please tell me what this sentence mean. 'You have to tip your hat to Mr. Kuhn, no?'
neel kulkarni
http://www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
And I guess as commentary on all of the above, geeze, why do people
get into personal attacks when their ideas are questioned? I think that
Brother Neel gave wonderful exposition on the Patanjali Yoga Sutra
(e.g., let's go to 2:1 which clearly states that Patanjali's kriya yoga requires
Bhakti Murga)....I guess it's most interesting when folks focus on the
ideas, rather than attacking the person submitting them....long day...endofsermon.
bg
|
|
| |
|
| Neel,
It was a half-hearted attempt at humor. Briefly, Kuhn held that in science what we know to be "right" is based on a number of factors, of which actually being "right" is only one. I was making the same observation about yoga, yourself, and Sivaram as regards this conversation. You were "right", in that what you said was historically and factually accurate. On the other hand, Sivaram could claim to be "right" as well for other reasons. In this case he would be right because the vast majority of yogis, in the West at least, know yoga primarily through the Sutras and as such see the yoga as codified by Patanjali as being all there is to yoga. The acceptance of a theory as being "right" has as much to do with the popularity and reputation of the theory's proponents, or with the number of people supporting it, or with how it is "marketed" to the public at large, as does accuracy.
Anyway, like I said it was a half-hearted attempt at humor. I'm working on about 2.5 hours of sleep since Saturday night so my explanation is probably a bit daft, but I hope I at least got the idea out there. No offense was meant to you or Sivaram in any way. |
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-11-24 11:44 AM
sivaram - 2005-11-19 11:02 PM
He's leading from Hatha to Raja in one session, which IMHO is a cool approach, but it doesn't fire up some types of students. I also teach along those lines, but with pranayama between the asanas and the meditation. He's using the word Raja as a tag for his style, which I guess is okay if the whole point is to take students through to meditation. Hopefully he's also teaching some principles of the yoga sutra?
i would imagine the talk might focus on some of the sutras?
That style & sequence makes perfect sense to a Sivananda trained teacher. We are taught to relax with internal focus and use of mantra, learning to be aware of the flow of prana during asana practice.
Who is the guy? Do you have any links?
Hi Sivaram,
Who is the "he" in your post above...I guess I lost the thread here, since the post
prior to yours was mentioning BKS Iyengar. I can't imagine that your comments apply
to BKS...
No not BKSI. See Ravineave's posts:
ravineave - 2005-11-21 8:11 PM
Jonathan Foust
Sudhir Jonathan Foust, MA, is cofounder of the Mindfulness Training Institute of Washington, D.C., and conducts retreats and seminars that focus on cultivating embodied awareness. He is a senior teacher and former president of Kripalu Center and has practiced yoga and meditation for more than 30 years. A member of the Kripalu ashram from the age of 25, he has led meditation retreats and trained teachers for two decades. Quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Yoga Journal, and other national publications, his recordings include The Art of Relaxation; A Touch of Grace: Bamboo Flute Meditations; and two guided meditation compilations, Energy Awareness and High Energy Living.
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Tsaklis:
I knew you did not mean bad. I just wanted to know it and that added to my knowledge. And, I can now laugh heartily. I also agree with what you wrote about Kuhnism.
Neel Kulkarni
http://www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| A relevant Richard Freeman quote...
"Rather than a direct experience of reality, an unconditional love and freedom, Fundamentalism often causes us to mistake the processes and symbols of yoga for the actual thing. This separates us from immediate experience of the openness of being and our yoga ironically becomes an escape from life, an avoidance of the present moment." |
|
| |
|
| Dear Mitch:
Thanks for this quote. There is no fundamentalism in the Yoga Philosophy as to not being open to the others who practice different paths. Fundamentalism is there only in the actual Philosophy, which is always based on the fundamental, because the aim of the Phiolosophy is to find and establish the fundamental. Next, the truth as per the Yoga and Spirituality is Form less and therefore, no symbols are present at the point of Reality. But, there is one step beyond that when one realizes that the formless reality has another side which is the prakrii. Those who stay always in the form have differences due to different forms, one who has gone beyond the form has difference with those with forms, and those who went to the final step, they have no differences at all. This is stated as 'sarvam khalvidam brahm', all verily is brahman, formful and formless. Until this realization all is only in a conceptual stage.
What people call as tolerance for others is not a realization, but only a social adjustment
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Neel,
From an intellectual standpoint, debating the meaning of the term "Raja Yoga" can be amusing. From a practical standpoint, it is irrelevant. The term is merely a symbol and the symbol is merely a device to help our limited minds understand the formless. That's the point that the quote made and that I agree with - and it seems that you agree as well.
Peace.
|
|
| |
|
| Wow. That is interesting. Dear Mitch:
When I read the quote you gave, I think I did NOT understand what the word Fundamentalism meant. I thought it meant adhering to a fundamental. What does it actually mean? But, I know I should ask that question to Mr. Richard Freeman to get his exact understanding.
I did NOT understand the Term Raja Yoga as a symbol, neither I meant that. I also did not amuse myself in intellectual understanding of that term. I know exactly what that term means in Language and in Action/Experience. What I was saying in the postings of this thread is already there, but in terms of your comment: a) I was trying to answer the original question, please see it. b) I was trying to say, that if one is following a particular practice, which is already not done at all, or has been done NOT intentionally, then one should first know the meanings and parameters of that practice, and then practice it. c) Later, I stated that Patanjali Yoga sutras summarize the entire understanding of Yoga. And, his eightfold path has been named by later as Rajayoga. Same as some other people have named other things are Rajayoga.
Lastly, debate or discussion requires two persons, with two view points, and the view points are NEVER formless. So, there will be always a difference. But, one should state one's own understanding as a part of the discussion. And, let the other party do whatever they want.
As for formless, that is an Experience, and NOT a viewpoint, or a symbol, or a term. When that is realized it can not be expressed.
neti neti... upanishad.
Neel Kulkarni
http://www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Neel:
What I like about this thread is the discussions within the discussion. To whit - at first this thread was a debate between yourself and sivaram about the definition of raja yoga - specifically, does it simply mean meditation or is it a posthumously applied label for Patanjali's ashtanga? (Personally, I like the answer that raja yoga is an integration of bhakti, kriya, karma & jnana yoga - the sivananda approach.)
Next, the debate was whether the eight-fold path of Patanjali's ashtanga system represent steps to meditation or samadhi. I've always been taught that the limbs are interdependent but separate, meaning they don't need to be practiced in a specific order, but you need all of them in the end! Of course, the irony is that the external limbs are considered prerequisites for the internal limbs, so there is the appearance of steps, but it's not dogmatic.
Finally, our civil discussion touched upon the ideas of fundamentalism and symbolism. I believe that Freeman was discussing the fundamentalistic approach that some practioners adopt - i.e. Jois' ashtanga is "true" yoga or that Iyengar is the correct approach. Of course, the answer is that they're all correct, they're all yoga, and the differences speak more to our personalities than to concepts of right path or wrong path.
not this, not this indeed. |
|
| |
|
| Mitch:
For lack of time, I am being brief, please forgive me. Now, I slightly understand what Fundamentalism in your quote means, and this is what I have to say, in addition to small comments otherwise:
- history of my discussion with Shivaram, and my responses to initial question, etc are already present in the previous part of the thread. So, I do not wish to repeat them.
- It is NOT Patanjali's Eight Limbed System at all. The sage Patanjali has not done anything with the eight limbs. These limbs existed exactly same way before. What the sage Patanjali has done is: Comprehend the previous Yoga knowledge in the Sutras, by addition of refutation of Buddhist Philosophy of Shoonyavaad. Also, they are eight limbs and not steps. Again, the internal limbs are External to Nirbeeja Samadhi. (tadapi bahirangam nirbijasya.. Chapter 4).
- Lastly, if what you wrote about Fundamentalism is Iyengar and Ashtanga style. Both these approaches are good, but they ARE NOT COMPLETE for the goal of Yoga. They are only good in their own part. Thus, both of them are FUNDAMENTALLY partial in the practice of Yoga. Actually, both are just styles of practicing Yoga, mainly Asana and Pranayama, at least as far as the instruction in USA goes. They do not address other limbs, which Shivananda Yoga addresses.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
Raja Yoga
