[quote=Nichole;17433]Hello Tyler,
Welcome back to the forum–it is has been awhile, so I am glad to “see” you here again! I hope you’ve been well. It seems that you have been getting deeper into your studies of Yoga and comparative traditions–it is certainly wonderful for exercising the mind
I wanted to speak to two things from your posts above: the first, being Mukunda Stiles’ poetic phrasing of Patanjali’s Sutras. Of course, we are fortunate to have so many different translations and renderings of Patajanli’s Sutras available to us, and if Feuerstein’s voice is suiting you best at the moment, it is not at all a surprise to me that you would not be interested in something more poetic. For the others reading along with this thread, these are Mukunda’s own thoughts for his poetic rendering that I borrow from the preface of his book:
My intention is to makes this text easily accessible to readers without the need for an advanced course in Indian philosophy or Sanskrit. It is delivered in poetic phrasing so that it can be received more readily by the right side of the brain, unlike prose, which tends to go to the left side. To facilitate understanding, I have chosen to use common English phrasing and removed philosophical and Sanskrit terms. I present a version free of the normal commentary to allow readers to explore their own ideas and actively engage their inner selves in contemplative dialogue. This is in line with the perspective on samyama–the continuum of contemplation (dharana), meditation (dhyana), and spiritual absorption (samadhi)—described by Patanajali in chapter 3.
The second point I wanted to speak to is Yoga as science. Yoga is very much a science, in the strictest Western definition, as well as in it’s origins and contemporary application. The techniques and methods within the system of Yoga lend themselves to the science, and the art, of Yoga. Yoga is also a partnered, or sister, science with Ayurveda; offering a complete system that addresses physical health, and the health and well-being of our minds and souls, giving rise to the unfoldment of higher consciousness. Dr. David Frawley writes on these topics so wonderfully, with Feuerstein writing the introduction to one of Frawley’s books, Yoga & Ayurveda: Self-Healing and Self-Realization. If you are not already familiar with Frawley, I think his voice will also suit you right now, based on your other current preferences. I read and reread his Yoga & Ayurveda regularly.
Namaste,
Nichole
[/quote]
Hi Nichole,
I guess I tend to disagree that poetry enhances understanding. If we
are going to deal with words at all, it’s best to have really really clear
instructions, in the beginning. Later on, it might make more sense
to enjoy the poetic aspects. It is so very hard to find really really clear
instructions, that I just about gave up hope on it. Perhaps the answer
for me, is what Willem suggests - go to the yogis who also learned
a few things from the Buddhists. I think this will really do it. Georg
has also had a lot of Buddhist influence. The reason I say so is merely
because of clarity.
One problem with the Sutras is the aphorisms. Aphorisms are an old,
out of date way to write down instructions. People gladly gave up
the use of aphorisms when the printing press came along, and for a very
good reason. Now we have much greater efficiency in the writing of
textbooks in every field.
Commentary on the aphorisms was absolutely necessary. For example,
it was the same in medieval Italian Universities - students would study
and memorize the aphorisms, but then they would go to class and the
professor would go over them very carefully in person with the students.
Making them into poetry might be nice for, say, the really advanced
students who already studied all that stuff, but not for the ones
still trying to get a grip. It’s just my opinion about it.
I can give an example from another field: 3D animation. I own
a software called Messiah. I really like it, but the instructions are
not so great. There is both a manual written by the company itself,
and instructional videos made by a third party. Ok, the software users
all like to claim that these instructional videos are great, and do the
job just fine for beginners. I have tried both, and I know from experience
that both leave out steps, even when used together. The people on
the Messiah forums offer their help and claim they can fill in any blanks.
I don’t think so, and here’s why: I’m at the level where I find the instructions
do not even tell me how to make the dinosaur’s legs move, and I am not
going to go ask these guys to tell me how to do it, because they are working
professionals, and they would then just tell me to go “RTFM.” So my claim
that the manual and videos do not cover the basics for beginners is absolutely
right, even though they don’t want to admit it, and don’t want to be honest
with newcomers about it. So what is the answer? I have to go learn about 3D
animation using another software, one that has really good and clear, and so
very very thorough instructions. Then I have to hope that someday Messiah
will make sense to me, after I first learn somewhere else. In case anyone
wonders, it really exists, it’s here: http://www.projectmessiah.com/.
I even understand why they don’t want to be completely straight-
forward with the newcomers - the messiah community is small
and weak, and badly needs more participants. It is a great software,
but does not have a big-time reputation.
It’s like I said to a guy named Suricate: Even with good instructions,
people are going to come up with plenty of problems on their own.
Why make it harder than it needs to be? if one is really trying
to help people understand that is. Suricate is kind of at the level
of a guy messing around with his hot-rod, not realizing that he’s
talking to people who don’t even know how to do a tune-up yet.
In fact, he probably wouldn’t even want to bother with the people
who don’t even know how to do a tune-up yet, when messing around
with the hot-rod is so much more interesting. He writes software
plugins for messiah after all. But somebody somewhere has to be
able to teach the program! So this is part of the reason why there
are so few new-comers to the messiah community.
This is very similar to where I find myself with Yoga. I find that
many Yoga teachers are kind of like this - and don’t really have
a clue about how to help the people that can’t even figure
out how to make the dinosaur’s legs move yet. They think
they are instructing people who are beyond this point, when in
fact, they often aren’t, and the people who are frustrated with that
friggin’ un-moveable dinosaur leg, can get nowhere in the meantime.
This is why I was so happy when I found some clarity with
the Buddhists. But the inward-seething post-modernism
is kind of an obstacle for me too, so I have to just try to find
what works for me where I can.
You know, maybe an even better example would be a Shakespeare
play. I tried reading Macbeth the other day, and it was too hard.
Unless I’m looking at a movie, it’s too hard to understand it. So
I was advised to get a copy of the play with a commentary and
notes. I’m going to do that. I’m not an intellectual lightweight,
but the language and culture differences are huge.
As for Yoga being a science, I’m sorry, I disagree, Yoga is very
much not a science, but it doesn’t have to be a science to be
valuable! If Yoga were a science, then why is it so very religious?
Yoga is not a science, and Ayruveda is not a science.
Ayruveda is a folk medicine. Folk medicine is not science.
It might help some people in the absence of science,
some modern medicines might be based on traditional
folk herbal treatments, but it is not a science. It is “folk
medicine.” Medical science, is a science, and even then just barely.
Folk medicine is not, no offense meant. Do you see my point of
view? Folk medicine still has its value, I know that as well as
anyone, but my own supplement regime has come to rely on
more modern and scientifically-originated kinds of supplements,
than on traditional herbs. I still do use some.
Next: they do not have to be ranked as sciences to be
useful. I regard this claim that Yoga is a science as
mere marketing hype. Seriously, was this claim
ever made before the first Hindu missionaries traveled
to the West to proselytize Yoga and Hinduism and etc.?
I don’t know the answer, but if somebody knows, please
tell me.
To me, this seems like just a way for Hindus to try to make
it sound more appealing to Westerners, who really like their
science. But it doesn’t make it more appealing, especially
considering the lack of good clear instructions! It is not a science,
it is a technique, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is still
valuable, and worth trying to understand it, if one can find good
instructions somewhere. They would do far better to try to make
it more understandable to Westerners, than to worry about
marketing it as something it isn’t.
But you know, I understand many eastern Buddhist teachers have
this same problem, and just give up and go home and pray us westerners
can go get some help somewhere, while those who are very Westernized
seem to have a better chance of doing it. For example, Sakyong Mipham,
Pema Chodron, and Ayya Khema are very good examples of Buddhists
who can teach very clearly. If I can find even one or two Yoga authors
can do this, I will probably be glad that even that one or two can do it,
and it will make a lot of difference to me personally.
Tyler
Ps: Glad to see you again too, yes I’m fine, hope you’ve been well
too.
