|
|
| What is it really? how does it differ from other modalities. I believe John Friend is behind it? He is in Siddha yoga also because I have seen him in some intensives there. Very highly qualified guy. |
|
| |
|
| Several good articles describing the anusara philosophy are gathered on their website www.anusara.com .
And yes, it does appear that Siddha yoga was a turning point in John Friend's pursuit and study of yoga. Though he's beeing studying yoga and philosophy since he was 8 years old, so I'd imagine that covers alot of ground. |
|
| |
|
| I've studied a lot with John Friend and continue to deepen my understanding of the philosophy of Anusara yoga. Though the influence of Siddha yoga is apparent and honored, the philosophies are not the same and in fact there are many other influences.
What John does really well is to take many ancient and modern approaches, find the essence of them and make them relevant in today's world. The philosophy of Anusara yoga is a non-dualistic Tantric philosophy. Tantra basically takes everything that has been done, keeps what works and then says "How can we enhance this? How can we make it better?" To me it makes sense - honor what has come before and keep evolving. Innovation.
How the philosophy differs from Classical and Vedanta can be explained by the following, which is taken from an article I've written:
"To explain the distinctions we'll use a lotus flower as an example. A lotus flower grows in muddy water, and out of the muck blooms exquisite beauty.
The Classical Yoga perspective would be that the lotus must rise above the dark waters of the physical to realize the flower of enlightenment.
The Vedantic would look at it and say the mud and the flower are illusion and the only real is the spirit.
A Tantric view on the situation is that the muck, the root, and the flower are divine. The mud is sublime.
Tantric philosophy is a more inclusive path, while Classical and Vedanta use turning away from some aspects of life as the means to Source. In non-dualistic Tantra, everything is real and all is divine. Classical views both matter and spirit as real, though matter is inferior to spirit. In Vedanta, only spirit is real and matter is an illusion. The ultimate goal of all three approaches is union with Source."
The articles on www.anusara.com are a great place to find more info. I have also written on this topic on my blog. Here is the exact address: http://www.yogawithkatrina.com/tantra-art-living-fully/
Isn't philosophy fun? |
|
| |
|
| Wow!
Thank you KatrinaAriel!
was so clear and beautiful!
 |
|
| |
|
| I took a yoga and buddhist history class my last semester of college and it was one of the hardest classes I took in all four years. I still dont understand some of it...=\ |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 40
| Excellent description KatrinaAriel. I´m often overwhelmed by yoga´s vast spiritual and physical elements. But I quickly try to calm my mind and know that, with time, it will all be clear. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 17
| Well everything is real and all is divine. Classical views both matter and spirit as real, though matter is inferior to spirit. In Vedanta, only spirit is real and matter is an illusion. The ultimate goal of all three approaches is union with Source |
|
| |
|
| "The Classical Yoga perspective would be that the lotus must rise above the dark waters of the physical to realize the flower of enlightenment.
The Vedantic would look at it and say the mud and the flower are illusion and the only real is the spirit.
A Tantric view on the situation is that the muck, the root, and the flower are divine. The mud is sublime."
Everything is real. All atoms are equal. (Flower atoms are not superior to mud atoms.) Some things are physical realities (that are all in a constant flow of change). Some things are the products of our imaginations, are poetic representations of things. A poem is real in the mind of the reader, but does not exist outside of that paradigm. Some things are independently real, and some things (like poems) are dependently real, i.e. products of our minds.
The mud is real, the root is real and the flower is real, whether I know about them or not. Whether they are divine or not is totally up to how you wish to view them. Only the mud, root and flower exist without you. You add the divinity. (Not because you are divine, but because that is your frame of reference, based on your culture, education and experience.) You give reality to all the attributes by your point of view. If this were not true, we would all see the attributes the same like we all see the physical mud, root and flower the same.
None of these paradigms is in and of itself true. They are all conditional.
Thus, to me the real question is not which is "true", but which point of view works best for me at the time and place I currently find myself? Which is the best tool?
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 188
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, | As we deepen our alignment with the Supreme, we step deeper into the flow of Grace. It is through the revelatory power of Grace that we awaken to the truth that this Divine flow is our essential nature, that we are all part of an interconnected web of Divine consciousness. This higher knowledge naturally fuels our deepest desire to lovingly serve the creative flow of life through each breath and posture in our yoga practice. On our yoga mat we artistically offer our individual light and our unique music with the heartfelt prayer of adding more beauty, love, and goodness to the world. |
|
| |
anusara philosophy
