X-Ftn-To: Sahaj Yogi 

"Sahaj Yogi"  wrote:
>Indeed there exist many approaches to yoga. One could be called the forced
>or "hard"  school and the other the soft and yielding school (although I am
>sure one could invent different names, but regardless the styles do differ.

This is quite obvious, but I would be quite disinclined to reduce the
differences to merely two groups, soft and hard. Yielding and force
are two aspects that are usually well balanced in every technique that
makes any sense, and the difference between an effective and
ineffective one is in knowing when to do what.

>Although no one asked me :-)   the word, "demanding", actually does have the
>gist of an imperative to it (at least to me) and its usual synonyms are
>mandating, summoning, or commanding (which have negative connotations at
>least for me. However the word could also be used  merely as "exacting" as
>in "requiring"  time, effort,  and energy. In that sense everything that we
>do or which occupies our attention or requires energy is demanding.

Yes, that is true. It even takes energy to walk across the street and
go to the supermarket. It also takes energy to eat. Even your
metabolism consumes energy. Studying for school is demanding. Work is
demanding. 
It is, also, more demanding to do something that would leave a trace
in the word, than to just watch TV the whole day. 

>In that sense the definition does not make much sense. 

It doesn't, if you attempt to twist it into perversion just to give
your point the appearance of sense.

>So one approach (hard or forceful) is the "no pain - no gain" school which
>is predicated upon the harder you work, the greater will be your reward. 

"Demanding" doesn't mean "hard". "Working hard" implies struggle, and
struggle is almost always the sign that you're doing something wrong.
As I pointed out before, demanding things do not necessarily imply
struggle; on the contrary, you can have demanding things that bring
you only pleasure, but they DEMAND you to focus on doing them. To
repeat the previous example, reading big books is demanding, it takes
lots of focus and concentration, but if the books are good, it is a
very rewarding experience. For instance, I wrote a book that is very
demanding to read, but if you do, you'll find it very rewarding.
According to some people, comic books are the best literature, because
they are so undemanding to read, that you don't even have to use your
brain to read them. 

>It
>is goal oriented and often says, "that the pain is good".  

You're missing the point again. If you read a good book, it is
demanding, but it's not goal oriented; in fact, you wish the book was
bigger so that the experience of reading would last longer.

>Another approach (the opposite) could be called the yin or soft school which
>is process oriented and which says pain is not where it is at, but rather
>the alleviation of force, drivennesss, stress, pushiness, and the like is
>the goal found in the present. This latter school brings you into the
>present and direct relationship and as such leads toward more spontaneous
>expressions and vinyasa (options). Here the original Kripalu Sahajyoga style
>is one example.

OK, but what has that got to do with my example? 
Do you want to say that reading ten big books on yoga is goal
oriented, that it creates pain, stress, force, drivenness, pushiness
etc, and so one should not read such books, because they are too
demanding, and demanding things create stress? Come on.

>. "Danijel Turina"  wrote in message
>news:7l96dtguq75ff5qe0ft2toaa39b14ba43e@4ax.com...
>>
>> Drinking beer and watching ball games is far less demanding than the
>> study of physics, but it's also far less rewarding. You'll find the
>> similar examples everywhere.
>
>So this is again a subjective value judgement. Drinking beer is demanding on
>the kidneys and stresses the body. 

Exactly. The thing that doesn't appear to be demanding turns out to be
extremely demanding in the long run, and the thing that appears
demanding at the first glance can in fact be extremely rewarding.
Drinking beer and watching TV will turn you into an idiot, and ruin
your physical health. It seems undemanding at first, but if you watch
carefully, it costs you your life, and so the price is in fact very
big. Reading books would seem demanding to a beer-drinking
game-watching redneck, but it will open your horizons, make you more
educated, informed, it will develop your mind. And, in the process,
you will have a great time.
So, when I analyze your nitpicking, it turns out that you have no
argument against demanding things, but only against strennuous effort
invested in a pointless, irrelevant goals.

>The study of mathematics and Physics also
>may not be rewarding to me, but may be to soem one else.  When we do what we
>love, there is no sacrifice, and  no real effort required/demanded -- just
>love calling us into more love.

OK, so the demanding things are good if you like doing them. Oh well,
now you're really disproving my point. ;>

>> >This seems to be at odds with surrender.
>>
>> Surrender doesn't mean laziness and passive attitude. If you study
>> mathematics several decades, you must surrender very deeply to it, and
>> you must also find it very interesting. The same is with NBA
>> basketball, and also with yoga and everything else. If you define
>> surrender as doing nothing and always going where there's least
>> resistance, then it's a negative quality, and I don't teach people to
>> acquire negative qualities.
>
>Funny I teach yoga as going toward releasing resistance.  

I teach using any method necessary and at hand. Sometimes I teach
relaxation, sometimes I demand strong focus. Sometimes I teach martial
arts and sometimes I teach loving kindness. If you're competent, you
can use absolutely anything and produce great results. I even teach
control, if someone isn't able to take responsibility for one's own
life. I teach people to say "no", so that their "yes" would have
meaning. I teach them to reject in order to be able to accept. I
improvise. 
So what's your point?

>In meditation I
>surrender to doing Nothing. 

Oh, it is important, but it can take you only so far. 

>Here I think you as a man, may not be respecting the power of the passive,
>receptive, or what are often called female qualities and call them
>"negative". Doing restorative poses or simply "nothing" such as shavasana
>can be just the right thing for some people.

With all due respect, you won't be able to figure out what I'm doing
from just reading my writing on a newsgroup. Whatever you think about
me, it's probably completely wrong. If you want to know more about me,
reading my book would be a good start. You can find it on Amazon, and
in it I could write much more than I could possibly manage here, in
any length of time. 

>Ahhh surrender -- hard work that  :-)

Of course. As I said, good things are often very demanding.

>> After all, _I_ teach surrender, and you could already see that I'm not
>> very compatible with your assumptions. According to my teaching,
>> surrender to power makes you powerful. Surrender to God makes you
>> divine. Surrender to knowledge makes you knowledgeable. Surrender to
>> sin makes you sinful. So, when I say that one should surrender to God,
>> I mean that one should acquire all the divine qualities.
>
>A nice example, but still dualistic, ja?  

Show me any practice that isn't. Of course it is dualistic, it is the
process, it's not the description of the goal. 

>This Power is not something that
>we can own, put in our pockets, or take with us when we die, ja?  Rather,
>it is transpersonal in nature. 

Exactly, and so when you are not _you_, when you are the power itself,
you don't have to own it or take it with you, because you are it.

>Wu Wei for example is a profound principle in
>Taoism and many martial arts. The "trick" seems to me how to cultivate a
>practice which allows this awareness and presence to become more PRESENT in
>our everday life.

Yes, and I guess that it, too, is very demanding. ;>

>> I might _seem_ to be saying it, but I'm not saying it.
>> Awareness, yes. Awakened consciousness, yes. Realization, yes. But
>> control is something different. But yes, if you think that surrender
>> means lying down in expectation of imminent death, then I understand
>> why my words represent a problem.
>
>Yes, surrender and control :-)  A very large topic (should we get seducted
>further into philosophy). 

I see no need for that..

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org