I'm splitting this into a new thread to avoid getting too far off-topic...



I'm not so sure about that - I've been reading the AYP site and there are a number of warnings about unpleasant experiences - violent cleansings and even Kundalini raising "holy hell" if she does not get what she wants.

True there is not the emphasis on the negative that there was in MCTB but then Burmese Theravada seems to be just about the most "negative" spiritual tradition out there - not that I'm saying that as a judgment against it - perhaps it's the only one that gives it to you straight - certainly I see that is its appeal to many people.

You're right though, all and all, Yoga does seem to provide a more inviting atmosphere and a more desirable end result: Hmmm...ecstatic Divine Union vs. Nirvana - a "cessation" that supposedly isn't annihilation but sure as hell sounds like it. I know what I would choose.

Of course the "hardcore" Buddhists will say in Yoga you're really just getting stuck in the Jhanas - and they might be right. I am not experienced enough to judge.

Right now my spiritual "strategy" is this: Pursue the Yogic bliss states, but, if they start to irretrievably decay, remember those gloomy old monks and the possibility that they might have been right.

Some comments:
(1) the ecstasy aspect of yoga is not described as a "temporary state", but as a gradual unfolding into a permanent condition.

(2) Yoga does not equate "enlightenment" with being in permanent ecstasy. Yogani describes three milestones to enlightenment:
(a) 24 hour inner silence aka samadhi aka the witness aka pure bliss consciousness, etc
(b) 24 hour ecstasy, which is basically a very refined form of whole-body-mind orgasm; this has no correspondent in pure insight, that I know of.
(c) 24 hour "ecstatic bliss"/"divine love"/"divine union" (these are his terms), aka union of subject and object, which in insight terms would be the actual "enlightenment".

(3) With regards to kundalini symptoms, there is a fundamental difference between insight and yoga. When unpleasant symptoms arise in the practice of yoga, they are seen as a temporary result of very intense and/or incorrect practice. But the euphoria-depression cycles of insight tradition are described as the bread and butter of correct practice.

My conjecture, which I have already vaguely stated before, is that insight practice works directly on the "conscious attention" aspect of cognition, which is the "place in the brain" where union of subject and object actually occurs. This is what "noting" actually does. But working on this aspect without cleaning up the rest of the nervous system causes "energy imbalance" --- it is not accidental that all the "unpleasant" nanas are said to be "unstable" --- and it is this imbalance that causes pain.

Since any interesting conjecture must be refutable, I propose that the following experiment should help us settle the matter:

[indent]Take any person who got into stream-entry and is getting violent insight cycles; have this person do Qigong practice on the meridians and microcosmic orbit for three months, while lightening up insight practice to maybe 2x15m a day, and see what comes of it. I predict that doing Qigong, particularly opening up the microcosmic orbit, will decrease the violence of the insight cycles, eventually to the point that there won't be any dark night anymore.[/indent]

Of course we would need a volunteer

hi bruno! i don't have much understanding about qi-gong and Yoga, but this is what im assuming based on ur post pls correct me if im wrong: that Qi-gong is better at removing dark nights than yoga, but yoga also does this to a lesser extent.

im currently myself aiming to 'to do more yoga' but only just tried qi-gong and havnt read that much abt it to otherwise give it more time.

I think so, yes. After one hour of Qigong I always feel better; in a "normal" day I feel fresh and gleeful; there are some days when I'm feeling discomfort from too much purification, and in these days Qigong always dramatically reduced the discomfort, usually replacing it with fatigue (the kind of pleasant fatigue you feel after a long day of moderate exercise such as walking).

Although "discomfort from too much purification" doesn't feel the same to me as a "dark night". I guess that a dark night means that one is stuck in a vipassana nana, and that it might be better to finish the cycle the insight way. I don't know.

Hi mjk!

Sorry this post could not be made shorter without being of little value. I'll try my best to give answers to you as well as to explain what "yoga" means to me.

Chuck's comment in the other thread really is worth considering. Vipassana practice has a clear goal as everybody here knows. With Yoga, what's the goal? Enlightenment, for sure. But what else? ***
Patanjali gave a good answer in his yoga sutra: to avoid suffering that is yet to come. So while my teacher at the Malaysian Buddhist Meditation Centre who was taking medication to lower his cholesterol would take his illness as an example that no matter what you tell your body, it won't do what you want (here: lower the cholesterol level), so it's non-self and painful and decaying, a yogi with a different skillset, e.g. someone knowing asanas and kriyas (cleansing techniques), would most certainly answer that your body can learn to remain healthy in most cases.

So here you get an idea of the difference, it's not black & white and more a matter of aesthetics as both traditions do work. All the three answers following are meant seriously, hopefully they bring some clarity. I should note that I'm far less familiar with theravada than with yoga, so anybody, feel free to correct or comment the following.


1) Theravada is faster! I recommend MCTB to anyone who looks like a chronic dark night yogi, Shinzen Young to many who are new to meditation and his focus on rest even to people who are not into meditation. I think it fits with a top-heavy character.


2) Clearly mu. It really depends on the sincerity of yourself. If you're serious about it, if your attitude is good, that'll make more of a difference than the tradition you're using. [Bruno wrote that yoga alone would not have gotten him stream entry that quickly... Bhakti and the will to surrender can transform you as fast as you can handle it, that's my experience; but then, most heavy duty yoga practitioners would not line their experiences up with the insight maps, so it's hard to disprove.]


3) Yoga is stronger in the long run! Because it teaches you how to develop the good attitude mentioned under 2) that I consider essential.


The rest of this post I'll explain point three. I'll use "yoga" as it was used more than 200 years ago, so today you could call it karma, jnana, hatha, bhakti or raja yoga. I'll start with its roots:

Yoga is based on samkhya philosophy. The essence is this, you have four constituents of the universe, purusha and three gunas / threads that weave the web of existence. Purusha is the seer unfortunately identified with the seen. The gunas are the tendencies found in matter, not material substances, and every thing has all three of them. Their proportion differentiates thins.

purusha is existing, knows, and is ever happy;
sattva is intelligence and the will to grow, it can be beautiful or enamorating;
rajas is force, attraction and repulsion, it can be nurturing or desctructive;
tamas is form, it can be a suppportive structure or the resistance to change.

In Yoga you let go out of strength, you develop all (or the most important ones, a matter of choice) of your human layers to such a sattvic quality that nothing (here: tamas and rajas) disturbes the freeing of your soul, your purusha. Sattva does not cling *. But to turn a layer (a kosha, e.g. physical body, pranic body, the mental sheaths, ...) sattvic, you'll have to learn how to use it, you've to restore its harmony and learn about its purpose, powers and limitations. You master something to the degree that you can see that masterhood needs humility. This learning process is not only meant to restructure your citta, but also to change your attitude. This growth in character is described in yoga with the bhavas **.

Yogic psychology ascribes to the citta, the personality complex (basically all that is seen by purusha), 8 bhavas, 8 ways of being: dharma, jnana, vairagya, aishvarya, and its four negative counterparts. What matters for a student of yoga is not what he does, but out of which attitude. And a good attitude comes with the understanding of the gunas (karma). While you gain this understanding, your intentions more and more reflect the following four bhavas:
- Dharma, that means you do what you have to do because ... well, someone like you in this situation has to do it - the attitude of a karma yogi, a sense of duty done for its own sake, the good side of tamas (form, stability, habit, routine & behaviour);
- Jnana, which means knowldege: citta learns about itself, what serves it and what does not - obviously the attitude focused on in jnana yoga, but also in hatha yoga; it's the good that rajas has to offer, energy and nurturing and making decisions;
- Vairagya is a healthy distance so that you can see clearly, it is detachment to the point of witnessing and surrender; this is what you do primarily in bhakti yoga, at this point sattva (clarity, intelligence, harmony) predominates the other two gunas and one-pointedness is easy;
- Aishvarya is the forth, it's trust in God (Ishvar), the power of belief, spiritual strength that grows with the other three and a personal relation with the divine - raja yoga and tantra focus on this, and the purusha's qualities belong here.

According to the yogic tradition, the bhavas are naturally developed in this order, dharma supporting jnana, jnana leading to vairagya. When your attitude reflects these four bhavas, everything done with this attitude leads you toward liberation. Now if you want to strengthen your bhavas, you do yoga, be it karma, jnana, ... . If you're familiar with Patanjali's ashtanga yoga, you have two angas for the cultivation of each bhava. But every technique can be used within this scheme. Vipassana cultivates primarily jnana.

Maybe you know how Kenneth distinguishes between realization and developmental enlightenment (see Buddhist Geeks #157). Yoga is about realization, but unlike direct path traditions where you start with sitting meditation (very holistic), it starts with the development of your citta (but that's not straight developmental enlightenment). Your attitude has to change. And as soon as your citta shows signs of vairagya, you can be taught direct path teachings that lead to citta vriddhi nirodhah, the cessation of the modes of the personality complex to a state without right or wrong knowledge, memory, imagination or sleep, to quote Patanjali. If you would be taught these in a rajasic or tamsic state, the teacher would most likely have wasted his or her time.

That's just my take on this, someone doing exclusively a "specialiced" yoga (karma, jnana, hatha, bhakti) or someone without knowledge of samkhya and the three gunas (hey, they're the three characteristics of this tradition and on a par with sat-cit-ananda, but don't tell anybody) will definitely give you a different answer. Still, even if a yoga practitioner puts it in other words or never heard the word Ishvar, it's still very likely that the practices they're doing were created to master one aspect of their citta and to develop the four bhavas to such a degree that the gunas are suppporting his or her awakening. A yogi whose citta and purusha do work together in this way is described as having bhava. The yogic development is aimed at developing bhava, not enlightenment. Then strong bhavas will get the job (if not every job) done.


* compare with MCTB, seven factors, it's just strong sattva.

** see MCTB, the chapter on fractal theory.

*** all traditional yoga (karma, jnana, hatha, bhakti and raja) was developed for enlightenment only. Tantra then added bogha (having fun) to moksha (enlightenment). And I am a big fan of Aurobindo, he added yet another one: he said (integral) yoga has three aims: developmental enlightenment, non-dual realization, and divinization of matter. But that'd be off-topic here.


What you shold keep in mind is that the game is not over at fourth path. I'd speculate that you'll have to do less laundry afterwards if you follow a more holistic path that includes psychological growth in the traditional sense. But it's really a matter of what you expect a "spiritual tradition" to do with your self. When you are a yogi (= practitioner of yoga ... why do Buddhist practitioners call themselves yogi? hm, I've a guess ...), you don't need much extra. But I guess you already know Theravada or Zen practitioners who start doing ... well, yoga or tai chi or qigong as a support. But I also know two yoga teachers in my town who teach a soft hatha yoga only and meditate zen-style and sadly have not met one who learned and would teach raja or bhakti style meditation. Yoga, the real thing, can be quite self-sufficient, that's part of its beauty, but then I am not here on this forum for no reason

I don't think I'm a Dark Night anything. Daniel says most people "poking around" here have at least crossed A&P, but I think I'm still firmly at Level 0. I read his book (which was really great, don't get me wrong.) and found this board based on a comment someone left on an aggregator site, not because I have been deeply into meditation for years. I haven't been. I don't even think have good access concentration.

Other times I think I am in the "Mind and Body" stage as I can see the "mechanism" of stimulus and thought in operation - desire sort of feels like a riptide, bad emotions like a tension or a knot - but then, totally "ordinary" people with no spiritual practice describe emotion in those terms too, so who knows.

The more I read here, the more I see different exceptions and caveats added to the maps to the point where I question their value to someone who isn't already on that path. That is, while I am sure the "path" described here is real (at least in terms of internal experience), I am not convinced it is the *only* real path, or even the most beneficial one.

Although he thinks the idea is totally bogus, Daniel's comment about "Divergent Paths" does really has me spooked. I do not want to get "mind-locked" into the negative space of Theravada if there is a better, less destructive way forward, and, more than that, one that has a different ending.

I have watched some Shinzen Young videos and was interested. Then I watched one where he interviewed an advanced student, who was so grateful that Young's techniques had delivered the "destruction of everything," including all personality and sense of self. Maybe I am just still too attached to this world, but the "destruction of everything" is not my spiritual goal.

It seems like the goal of most religions is "Life in death." Unfortunately it seems sometimes Buddhism is merely pursuing the converse of that - "Death in life." I don't want either. I want life in life!



Why unfortunately?



I have read the intro on his site but I have not yet checked out any of the audio talks. I will do that this week.



Hmmm, I watched a documentary on fractals that ended with an Aurobindo quote. I wonder if there's a connection there? As for the "divinization of matter," I was told that was the secret goal of Vajrayana as well, but I am not so sure about the reliability of the source who told me this (It was someone with a scholarly only - he claims - interest in the occult - in other words, it wasn't the Dalai Lama!)

Since I branched off this thread, I give everyone with something interesting to say permission to go off-topic as they want!



It seems like Daniel does not agree with this. He says, pretty much, "game over." On the other hand, he has also affirmed the quote "the Arahant fractal is vast," so who knows.



I always thought it was just a carry-over from the old Indian terms for a monk or a renunciate of any sort. As is my understanding, in Buddhism, there is ultimately nothing to "unite" with, so the literal meaning of "yogi," one who pursues Union, is not valid. But someone with more scholarly knowledge can certainly correct me on this one.



Understood. What then is your opinion of the relative truth-values of Theravada and Yoga? They do seem to make some opposing claims about the path and the end-goal. Or is this a question only a worlding would ask?

PS- Thanks for your detailed reply - it was very useful!

mjk: I can only conceptualize and speculate about what fourth path actually is, but my speculation is that it is "complete development" of a specific aspect of experience, which would be related to the sensations of observer vs object. But I think that any arahat could gain from developing other aspects.

For instance, take Duncan Barford; this is a guy from the occult tradition that eventually got fourth path. So from the point of view of insight tradition, his development is complete. Nevertheless, you will find in his blog (www.openenlightenment.org) that he went trough very unpleasant experiences after this. Nowadays, he is now actively working on the energy body and chakras (link), I'm guessing to make living into a more pleasant experience.

So it seems to me that arhatship is just, like Daniel Ingram says, completely loosing the sensation that there is a fixed, permanent, separate self. By all accounts, this is worthwhile. But I believe it is separate and distinct than, for instance, 24 hour non-dual awareness, and 24 hour kundalini ecstasy, and knowing how to do a perfect handstand, 24 hour automatic metta, etc.

Yoga apparently develops all three aspects, but does not teach you how to do a handstand or feeling metta 24 hours, etc.

All these seem to be connected but not identical skills.

mjk: I used to think that meditation was a "refusal of life". I've even expressed my doubts in a July 2009 post here at DhO (link).

What I found, I'm happy to say, that the results are the exact opposite of my fears. I feel that life was reaffirmed so many ways! Nowadays I love being with people and pretty much any living in general. I feel happy and healthy. And also that I'm just at the beginning of something even greater and more amazing! But I also feel that it doesn't come just from having more awareness and calm, that the "kundalini" aspect also plays a very important role. The "kundalini" aspect makes me feel a bit like I'm making sensual love with everything.

But "kundalini" is hardly mentioned by the insight traditions, and like I said before I am convinced that you can go all the way to arhatship with only a very incipient kundalini development; so I'm also convinced that insight development into arhatship is different from kundalini development into 24h ecstasy.

Julius: Wow that was very very interesting stuff! Thank you! Do you have a pragmatic reference for all this Yoga theory? I'm nuts about theory you know?

Don't worry about destruction, it's transformation. But then everybody has his or her own favourite words. About the divergence, I believe that there's only one full awakening, but the belief of a practitioner can strongly shape the experience of an enlightened life. So while an arahat might be able to see every single moment arise and pass, a bhakti yogi would be in love with the universe most of the day. So their life might look very different even if they went through the same stages.


It's unfortunate because something eternal believes it will die. But without ignorance, you could not get enlightened.


I can't tell you anything about Vajrayana. But Aurobindo tells you to get in contact with your soul first and then to get enlightened. So I have no practical idea what divinization means, but it's not an issue right now.



He recommends the book "After the ecstacy, the laundry", and many other people here write that growth does not stop. So if you're enlightened and see that your body could need some care, what do you do? You could learn hatha yoga. Or you start with something equivalent.




I don't know what you mean with relative truth-value. Both traditions will teach you how to see reality as it is. Point. That one calls it emptiness, and the other sat-cit-ananda or the union of Shiva and Shakti, does not matter. But if you don't believe in Shiva and Shakti, you can't experience them. If you're not trained in noticing impermanence, you propably won't even at arahatship. Maybe you like to visit www.thebaptistshead.co.uk and learn a little about magick and which impact believe has on the experience of life.

I want to learn to take care of myself first, that's what being a human entails for me, and this involves skills that are not taught in Theravada buddhism. But remember, skills are not the core teaching here, and it is easy to forget what your intention should be, especially in the beginning.

edit1: Hm, ok, the relative truth-value... Let me try. In my opinion yoga is a path where practice and life are well connected. There are fairy-tales and lies and false promises in all traditions, yoga is nothing special here. But then you'd really miss something if you dismissed anything that sounds supernatural at first glance. I found my balance of belief thanks to Alan Chapman, I didn't understand it when I was taught it from Indians. It's very helpful when you know someone in person who is living the yogic tradition and willing to share, someone like this is a good source of motivation and inspiration. And if you've met and talked with both Theravada monks and diligent yoga practitioners, you get the basic flavour of the traditions and what life means and feels like from a practitioner's point of view. I am happy with this rich tradition and if you ask me, the relative wisdom, the knowledge how to have a good day every day of your life, is something very very valuable. No substitute for getting enlightened, but a treasure for the human being that only a few traditions can offer. But then you're free to join yoga & zen or christian contemplation and martial arts and music. See Alan's writing on magick, especially "the art of experiencing truth", for a good, inspiring perspective.


@ Bruno: I can't recommend many books, some of this is found in the yoga sutra, and the best commentary is the one by Swami Hariharananda Aranya. He was a samkhya yogi, the last great one, but I am not sure whether the bhavas are in there as I haven't read it yet (when I got it, I already had studied four other commentaries). It's definitely a little "religous". The bhavas I learned at an institute, www.theyogainstitute.org. Jayadeva Yogendra, the guru there, digged them up from scriptures (I can't read sanskrit and cannot provide the names of the sources), and they teach yogic development and lifestyle, yogachara, based on the bhavas in their teachers' training courses. I can recommend the 1-month course. But if you like, I can write more on the gunas, their , and bhavas here.

edit2: I still don't know any good book on metaphysics, but there's quite some material on the four yogas, karma, jnana, bhakti and raja. When you got their relation with the bhavas (pretty much one on one) and the gunas, that's basically it, you can chew on it for yourself then. I could post some material I compiled for the 7-month-TTC at the Institute, it is meant as a source book and has a couple of pages on different kinds of yoga, the majority taken from the Swamis Vivekananda and Shivananda.
And balancing the gunas is what you're doing with cultivating silence and ecstacy.

I'm ok with transformation. In fact it is what I am after. I heard one person from the Yoga tradition describe it as planting a seed that then sprouts into a great tree. The potential for the tree is already within the seed. In fact it is what the seed wants and should become. This is an appealing description - and direction - to me.

On the other hand... you mentioned Jack Kornfield. I read "Living Dharma" and also some stuff of his that is available online. I remember him writing about a monk he admired: "He was really an extraordinary person. On the outside, very fierce. But on the inside, nothing. Nobody there." To me that is not appealing. Indeed it is frightening. I accept that there is no fixed "self" and that our beings change and grow over time. But to become nothing? No thanks. That is why at present I am more attracted to the Yoga practices. I am not interested in "being no one" (as one Advaita book is actually titled).



So I am hearing from many on this board. I am skeptical since many Yoga masters who have claimed Siddhis have been exposed as frauds, and many of the Siddhis claimed seem like any half-competent stage magician could pull them off, but who knows? But anyway the "supernatural" per se is not my goal. I am interested in new experiences - new frontiers if you will. My primary motivation is boredom (impure, I know, but you have to start somewhere?) Astral travel and precognition would be damn good cures for boredom, but they're not necessary.

Julius: I would love to read that material you compiled. I will buy Aranya's book.

My only issue with Yogani's approach is that he doesn't delve into theory. So you get to know all these powerful practices, but lack theoretical background. I feel that my own mental images of the process are very helpful in getting it done more quickly and safely, so I like to work on the accuracy of my conceptual images, even of non-conceptual states :-).

@mjk: Hm, boredom is not bad if you use it to your advantage. Yoga is not specifically aimed at new experiences. I mean, new experiences you'll more likely (and faster) have when doing kasine practice to enter the jhanas than when you learn karma yoga or hatha yoga. And you'll find almost as many non-inspiring yogis as you find non-inspiring buddhists. [Then instead of behaving overly self-less and holy, they might spend their whole day smoking and telling themselves stories about the gods.]
New experiences you don't get with many new techniques, but with one technique and regular practice. Really, asanas are great. But so are pranayama and unspectacular things like karma yoga and bhakti yoga if you only try; or just living each day as if it was your last one or vowing every morning that for the next 24 hours you'll be your best friend (instead of your worst enemy) or every day doing 20 minutes of impro-music / chanting for god or whatever you believe in.
Go deep enough. So decide which direction you want to go and why (zen, mantra meditation, energy work & astral projection, divination, chaos magick, sacral dance, ...), get some clarity in how to learn this (aypsite.org is good for yogic stuff, but he'll tell you to start with mantra or something similar) and ask for advice, and then make a resolution with yourself to stick with it for at least 4, 6, 12 months / till you got what you want, start practicing, and have fun.

Hm, if you want something new, why not try Robert Bruce?
http://www.astraldynamics.com/home/new-energy-ways.html
http://www.xehupatl.com/download_files/freebooks/Robert_Bruce-New_Energy_Ways_1.pdf
You'll get a new perception of your body from within fairly quickly and you'll have something to do for the next months. Then when you learned the full-body-circuit from the free ebook, you can buy his book on astral projection if you like or continue with meditation or something else. The biggest advantage of his system is, in my opinion, that you're actually doing something, so for me as a beginner, focusing on these activities was far easier than just observing, say, the breath.

@ Bruno: If you're after theory, Aranya should serve you.
Attached something on the systems of yoga, but no samkhya in there. I deleted only the parts on laya, buddhist and jain yoga, there's stuff on karma, jnana, hatha, mantra & japa, bhakti, raja and tantra yoga. The questions were given, I searched for material with which they could be answered. I found Vivekananda's book on karma and bhakti yoga the most worthwhile...

Those of you interested in exploring this topic might want to check out Matthew Daniell either at his center in Newburyport, MA or on retreat. He's been doing meditation and yoga for ~30 years at this point.

I just came back from my second weekend retreat with him and generally benefit from his instruction both in sitting meditation and moving meditation-- I'm no yogi, but an insight meditator and martial artist (karate & tai chi). The yoga itself is physically accessible to newbies like me and it's a chance to interact with someone who's more experienced at bridging these two practices.

He mentioned a weekly webcast too, though I'm not sure exactly what the topic is and I can't seem to find it. I imagine you could just go to his center's website and contact him if you wanted.

Hope this helps!