I have been studying Yoga philosophy and there are many new terms that I have come across. Although they are translated from Sanskrit to English, they are still alien to me. So I have compiled a lookup reference that I thought I would share with you. I bilieve the terms are vedantic translations which puts a slight twist on there spelling/pronunciation, there are also solely Vedantic terms described.



Yoga            = Union; philosophy of control of thought waves, the breaking of contact with pain
Hatha Yoga  = Practice of exercises to train ones body
Vedanta         = Philosophy of the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scriptures
Sutra           = Thread of thought

Godhead         = Reality underlying the universe
Atman           = Purusha = God within the creature/the Godhead residing in the body. Patanjali believed each creature had a complete copy of Purusha residing in it, other texts show the belief that there is one Purusha and each creature has only a part of it residing in them.

Prakriti        = The Atman/Purusha viewed from a human perspective, has attributes called Gunas
Gunas           = Forces opposed yet complimentary; Sattwa, Rajas, Tamas. One will always dominate
Sattwa          = Essence of Form
Tamas           = Obstacle to realisation of form
Rajas           = The power to remove obstacles

The Vedas have their versions of above:
Reality         = Innermost self of creature or object = Atman
Brahman         = Reality spoken in universal aspect = Godhead
Cosmos          = Elemental undifferentiated stuff of mind and matter. The power/effect of Brahman = Praktriti

Yoga differs from Vedanta on the distinction of Purusha Vs Prakriti. Patanjali states they are seperate but equal entities, Vedanta says they are the same thing.

Ishwara         = This is patanjalis cop-out, this is the idea of God himself. The Vedantan philosophy speaks of Ishwara as the supreme ruler of the universe. Ishwara is said to be Brahman seen through Prakriti.

Liberation/Enlightenment can be reached without devotion to God; it is written. However this is a dangerous path to take. Devotion to a personal ideal of God brings inclination to humility and service, it brings forth the highest form of love.

Mind            = Chitta, has three attributes; manas, buddhi, ahamkar
Manas           = Recording facility of the mind, stores the outside world as perceived by the senses
Buddhi          = Discriminative faculty, recieves impressions of world from the Manas and reacts to them
Ahamkar         = Ego sense, stores impressions as personal knowledge
Vritti          = A thought wave in the mind
Samskara        = A sandbank in the mind, our characters are made up of well developed Samskaras, these are collected over many lives.

Thought Types   = Right Knowledge, Wrong knowledge, Verbal delusion, Sleep, Memory
Right Knowledge = Direct perception, Inference, Scriptual testimony
Wrong Knowledge = False knowledge, i.e. not based on the nature of the object
Verbal delusion = Words do not corrispond to reality
Sleep           = Thought of nothingness. According to Patanjali; dreaming is remembering in your sleep.
Memory          = Perceived objects come back to conciousness

Attachment      = Trapped by your Ego
Non-attachment  = Freedom from desire, descrimination. Thought waves can be made to flow toward desire or

toward liberation. Non-attachment does not mean indifference toward others


Creation        = Evolution from undifferentiated to differentiated consciousness, from mind to matter
Universe        = Mahat, Buddhi, Ahamkar
Mahat           = The great cause. First stage of evolution from undifferentiated Prakriti; the cosmic Ego sense
Buddhi          = In the universal sense it is the second stage of evolution; Discrimination
Ahamkar         = In the universal sense it is the third stage; Personal Ego. This branches three ways to Perception, Action, and Tanmantra
Perception      = Sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch
Action          = Tongue, feet, hands, organs of evacuation/procreation
Tanmantra       = The subtle essence within; Aspect, odor, sound, flavour, feel

Meditation works backward from the makeup of the universe, the ultimate mediation is that which focuses on the fundamental aspect of the universe
Concentration   = Meditation
Meditation      = Single Object, Higher subconscious impressions, Bad Concentration

Single Object   = Examination, Discrimination, Joyful peace, Simple Awareness
Examination     = Perfectly concentrated on a gross element
Discrimination  = Piercing the outer layer and fastening on the Tanmantra
Joyful Peace    = Inner powers of perception or the mind
Simple awareness= Concentration on the Ego sense in elemental form

Higher Subconcious
impressions     = Constantly checking thought waves through the practice of Non-attachment, Perfect Yoga

Bad Concentration = Attached meditation, ignorance. This leads to state of disincarnate gods, and/or

becomming one with nature. In this state desire can be realised, but enlightenment cannot. Meditation on sense organs can bring about this state.

OM/AUM            = The most basic range of sounds you as a human can make, according to the Hindus
Mantram           = Meditation name/subject of the meditation
Prayer            = Mantram
Japam             = The act of repeating out loud the Mantram, this should not be done wih others around!

Patanjali says; once the aspirant has found his ideal form of Godhead and his way of approaching it, they must stick to it.

Hindus believe that the Karmas you create in your life determine whether you will go to heaven or hell, which are just planes of existance that you visit between incarnations. This plane that we are all in now is the only one where Yoga can be performed.

Karma           = A mental or physical act. Karma also means the consequences of an act.
Plane           = Place that we go when dead, impelled by Karmas we created while alive. You only remain in the Plane until the Karma has been exhausted, then you are reborn in this Plane.
Fate            = Sum of all Karmas

Achievement of perect Yoga does not mean an end of mortal life. The thoughts of a liberated man are said to

be like burnt seeds; they are the beginning of all possibilities but because they are burnt they cannot germinate. Thus they can no longer affect his Samskaras and cannot create Karma.

True Faith      = For someone to have True faith, Yoga says they must demonstrate: flexible, undogmatic thinking, they must be open to doubt and reason. True Faith it is said is a growing plant, shooting out new branches and leaves.

Energy          = Energy is talked about in the psychic sense, It is needed for liberation/Enlightenment.

Laziness is a true sin, the more energy we use up, the more we aquire.
Prana           = The Energy we draw into ourselves fro the surrounding universe, primarily by breathing
Pranyama        = Breathing exercises
Lotus of the Heart= This is the Spiritual centre of consiousness.
Mandala         = Lotus of the heart, it is a temple and inside resides the Atman


There is much more to list here, but I have only gotten half way through the book, i'll modify this list as I

go.

This is an excellent referential work Laz, and valuable to people like me who have not yet found the time to consider this topic in any detail [though I did learn at 20 years of age how to stand on my head].
I now know where to come for reference information, albeit your interpretation. Many thanks for your efforts!

All the best, Bill

There are many interpretations of the sanskrit texts and also many of Patanjali. Written 5000 years ago the intellectual approach to understanding the descriptions of enlightenment by those that haven't experienced it always fall short of its intent. Such has been the fate of most religions to this day. History has presented many interpretations, from the violence of conquering peaceful lands, the crusades and the spanish inquisition in the name of truth and God, to the passionate preachers of Televangelism who slide across the stage in the name of GAWD!!!!!

If you dive deeper into other translations you will find other variations to the meanings of the words you have listed. It is an impressive presentation, one that I am sure you have spent much time on in the last couple of weeks or months. There are others who have spent years researching the ancient texts and have a list similar to yours perhaps a little bit more detailed in the intent of the actual meaning of the sanskrit words.
I mentioned before the Sanskrit language is somewhat complicated and any one word can have up to ten different meanings depending on its use. Often the mistake of translation is to assume the same definition for each word in each application.
For example:

QUOTE

(1)Sutra           = Thread of thought (2)Atman           = Purusha = God within the creature/the Godhead residing in the body.

Sutra means thread or string, Atman is the connecting link of all of creation to its source, another name for it is Atira.
Put together, the "Sutra-Atman" is a word that describes the thread of souls, a thread of light that contains the aspect of every created being ever conceived in sequence to its actual creation. In the universal laws of creation the relationship of creation to experience has a sequence to differentiate one from another whether in a sequencial relationship or recognition to experience.

The Aum is the resonance of the universal energy of the unmanifest and resonates or vibrates within all aspects of creation.

QUOTE

Liberation/Enlightenment can be reached without devotion to God; it is written. However this is a dangerous path to take. Devotion to a personal ideal of God brings inclination to humility and service, it brings forth the highest form of love.

The above translation is backwards.

QUOTE

Patanjali says; once the aspirant has found his ideal form of Godhead and his way of approaching it, they must stick to it.

As is this one in relationship to the other.

If the Egos translation of this is followed it allows for the different aplications of understandings to a universal principal, that is limited to boundaries of the mind.
For example, all are tied together in consciousness, all resonate to the same universal principal, what works for one must work for all. If Ego in its illusions of universal separation determines what is key is self grandeur and the support of the self over the rest of humanity the energy devised cannot support universal expansion, only the illusion of self appointment to experience, another high within the limits of highs and lows, it will rise and fall.
Enlightenment is the expansion of consciousness it is the principal that lifts not just you but everything around you and it does not fall, the expansion is permanent.

In the presence of Love or when you fall in Love everything is filled with joy. In the presence of self appreciation you reach only a level of grandeur within a system of lesser and greater experience and values.

This statement properly interpreted:

QUOTE

Patanjali says; once the aspirant has found his ideal form of Godhead and his way of approaching it, they must stick to it.

Ideal- the right action or action that enlivens all of life and ones self, the shortest path between two points.
Ideal Form of Godhead- the universal principal which applies to all life.Experienced in many different forms and given many names its result is in the same level of vibratory resonance in all of life. It contains the Aum in its highest form.

The Sanskrit language was one of the very first physical languages born below the range of telepathic communication.
Similar to the sacred languages the vowels in a single word have deeper meanings to paint a broader picture to convey more of the essence of what it is referring to.
Todays language has fallen short of that capability.
Our slang takes many words and give meaning to interpretation and personal experience.
Cool is cold or a popular term to indicate a slang tem of acceptability.
The sacred languages were not misinterpreted by the evolved conscious person to give many different meanings to an idea but to precisely convey not only the essence of the thought but the experience of it as well.

Enlightenment is attainable by anyone, but like a journey of a thousand miles, it requires the 1st step and each succesive step can take you closer in a path that is a straight line or a variegated labyrinth. You can walk or take a jet plane.
Everyone has a path and it is filled with what one needs to understand the ideal.
Many start with an ideal and evolve into a greater ideal, just as a childs world has value, like a bicycle, as one evolves into adulthood it turns into an automobile.

One can learn from experience if pride doesn't get in the way, or one picks and chooses from their level of understanding to slowly evolve into the next level of understanding.

It would be wise if one is determined to take it upon themselves to get self enlightened to be thorough and search through all the different translations and then allow the heart to guide you. It may be time consuming but so is the following of the first information that comes your way that leads you to an eventual process of finding something that is only intellectually satisfying leaving you hungry for another fix or more.

Trouble I have with your comments is that they are just that; comments!

The descriptions I gave come from a published book, not from my own head.

The book is How to know God: the Yoga aphorisms of Patanjali, published by Vedanta Press in 1953; ISBN 0-87481-010-8

Yoga philosphy says to trust in scriptual testimony, direct perception, and logical inference. What's your source of reference, and your credentials? how am I to trust your word?

I am fully aware that there are many translations as i said in the original post, but I have only my experience of one. Rather than just critisizing, you'd actually like to try and help out?

How about you produce a similar list, spend some time comparing the translations above and those you know yourself, and produce a mapping that would help others out?

hi Joe,

have you read any of Sri Aurobindo's works? He was one of the foremost Indian philosophers of the 20th century, a mystic, and spiritual leader. He was very critical of most of the old yogas for trying to get away from earth into a higher world or some supreme Absolute. Instead, he recommended that we reach or embody a higher consciousness while being fully involved and integrated in this world. As such, he escapes the escapism of most of the old world-denying yogas. In fact, he cites the Upanishads, in support of his integral yoga, as saying that Earth is the foundation and all the worlds are on the earth, and that to imagine a clean-cut or irreconcilable difference between them is ignorance.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

You let your emotions get the best of you and you hear what you wish to hear.
And you said I was a lousy teacher.

Enlightenment is not about comparisons, but in finding the truth in everything.

Each text written by the masters is interpreted by lesser states of consciousness based on past impressions of sensory perceptions.
Until one reaches Union any idea of what it is, is an intellectual stab at the infinite.
Any person who reaches Union can guide another towards their own experience of the absolute.

IF your text was interpreted by a lesser state of consciousness then it is intellectually interpreted. IF the text is written and translated by an enlightened person that description is interpreted by a lesser consciousness intellectually and is a poke at the boundariless by useing tools based in boundaries.
If the person is reading the text that is properly translated by a conscious person and the person reading it has guidance to point the aspirant towards the meanings as they were intended they can better grasp the content which leads to greater understanding and direct experience.

Simple logical inference: If you want to learn about Electricity and study the theory you learn from a master in Electricity.
You could try to do it on your own share ideas with others that have no experience and maybe succeed but to allow for the shortcuts achieved by someone who has already stepped over the difficulties in second guessing leaves the guesswork out of the picture.

What is my authority?
I have been taught by a master.
I have studied more than one text and I have direct experience of what has been written about regarding the absolute. I have done this for lifetimes and this is not new to me.

I have been sharing my knowledge and you have shared only your skepticism mistrust and emotional attachment to pride and control.

Joe, I was not being critical of you. I simply asked because I thought you might know something about his works and might have an opinion over his philosophy. I'm currently reading his works ("Integral Yoga") for the first time, and am quite astounded, not only with the parallels between some of his notions (i.e., overmind) and Nietzsche's (i.e,. overman), but more importantly, between the similarity of his ideas with mine, though of course he speaks in a different language and uses different terms.... but the same, or similar, meaning is there. For example, his ideas concerning the infinite evolution of consciousness and realization of the supramental is very similar to what I've been saying all along about the relativity of enlightenment and levels of consciousness. In fact, his description of the realization of the supramental is identical to what I've elsewhere referred to as the 'consciousness singularity'. Of course, there are some minor areas where we differ, but I'm amazed that this person has had many of the same or similar lines of thought, and apparently experiences too, that I've had..... notions that I'd wondered whether anyone had ever thought of them before or elucidated them, and here's Aurobindo, who over half a century ago, has already elucidated these very same ideas! So, naturally, I'm eager to find out what conclusions he's reached and along what lines his train of thought and modes of expression have taken him.



Btw, when did I ever say that you were a lousy teacher? I don't think I ever said that.

[quote author=Shawn link=board=6;threadid=378;start=0#msg13548 date=1063218114]
hi Joe,

have you read any of Sri Aurobindo's works? He was one of the foremost Indian philosophers of the 20th century, a mystic, and spiritual leader. He was very critical of most of the old yogas for trying to get away from earth into a higher world or some supreme Absolute. Instead, he recommended that we reach or embody a higher consciousness while being fully involved and integrated in this world. As such, he escapes the escapism of most of the old world-denying yogas. In fact, he cites the Upanishads, in support of his integral yoga, as saying that Earth is the foundation and all the worlds are on the earth, and that to imagine a clean-cut or irreconcilable difference between them is ignorance.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.




[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly.
To achieve enlightenmnet in the body is to unite the manifest with the unmanifest.
No matter what physical universe you inhabit the same applies.

There was an interesting article I read about ten years ago from one of the grandsons of an indian who claimed to be camping in the desert during the roswell occurance that took place in 1947. It described what took place according to the grandfathers experience. The article claimed that out of 3 or 4 crash victims all were dead except for one which was saved and nurtured back to health.
After recovering the alien told them of his race and their history. The description went into several humanoid races developed or evolved from different basic lifeforms, similar to the theory of human evolving from apes or primates.
Disregarding the possibility of fabrication or even the relevance of the details what I found fascinating is that the basic description was from the idea of creation and civilizations connection to the source. I had read many theories or transcripts from Pleiadian channels and other spiritual/new age books and the basic theme underlying the woo woo fantasies of other life on different planets was the same.
The ability of the human to evolve or devolve is linked to the ability to connect source to manifestation and it is simply a choice. What you focus on grows.

The reason I refer to Eastern philosphy and teaching is because it is basic to all beliefs and more in depth than the western dogma and older in its practice and interpretation, but the principle of both is exactly the same.

Focus is key and it is not about concentrating on or removing any one object but expanding all into the same thing or the same source. This is what meditation is about. IT does not force the mind into any specific thought about any one subject but to allow it to follow all thoughts back to the origin which is the same.
This raises the vibratory level of the physical structure or releases the physical boundaries of the awareness to float freely within all aspects of the universal principal both manifest and unmanifest at once. This is omniscience and omnipresence in action.

Western philosphy refers to Jesus and his word, and he said according to thomas, something like," In a piece of wood or under a stone I am there" He wasn't speaking about himself the man but the christ within all of creation is in consciousness and it is in everything. Heaven on earth is not in an imaginary place or occurance that takes place after death but here on earth right now. Once the awareness is connected to it and frees itself from the illusion of limitation then there are no limitations.
There are many more teachers in the world who know of the same philosphy as Sri Aurobindo. It is a fact, the principal of enlightenment is not exclusive to Eastern philosphy.
A Course in Miracles is a fantastic book and elevates the awareness in much the same way and leads to exactly the same place and it is widely being taught and used everywhere.

Shawn, I was responding to Laz's post 1st, not yours.

whew! ..... you had me thinking that I'd caught you on a bad day or something

you new-age hippies are all the same, with your channels and past lives and residual lysergic amides and weed and free love and heaven-on-earth and whatnot. don't get your pantanjalis in a wad Joesus. I wonder if I should call myself Danvil or saDan or something. I'd like to start channeling Seth or metatron or something and tell them to start kissing my butt now if they plan on having a future

that goes for you too, Joesus :-*

8)

Joesus, once again you assume far too much.

Emotion, if there was any, was all yours.

If you asked questions and shared instead of thinking you knew the answers, we would have something worth keeping.


BTW, since when did I become a teacher?

[quote]Joesus, once again you assume far too much.[/quote]
I never assume.

[quote]Emotion, if there was any, was all yours.[/quote]
I do have feelings, don't you?

[quote]If you asked questions and shared instead of thinking you knew the answers, we would have something worth keeping.[/quote]
So are you upset that I don't have any questions? Do you think what has value is qualified by your distrust? (which you said you hated) That was a question by the way.



[quote]BTW, since when did I become a teacher?[/quote]
That's a good question. I was referring to your post that was deleted by Shawns arranging of the website in which you wrote to me that I was the "worst kind of Teacher."
It would take a teacher to know a teacher wouldn't you think?

You are indeed a master of contradiction Joe.

I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam.