I am studying the Pātañjalayogaśāstra in order to use the method of yoga described in it as a practical guide.
The Sanskrit text is the basis of the study. I analyse its morphology and consult academic dictionaries, then produce a translation directly from Sanskrit and compare it with academic translations. Where the meaning of a term or practice remains ambiguous, earlier texts in which related yogic concepts already occur may provide additional context.
I am beginning a systematic practice based on Patañjali's Yoga Sūtras.
Why have I chosen this particular system? Why have I decided to focus my practice on a single system at all, when many systems lead toward the same goal and there is something wonderful about being able to combine practices from different traditions as one sees fit?
We can make an approximation increasingly precise by dividing a system into smaller and smaller parts. But there is a question that the accuracy of each individual part does not answer:
We already know the exact area of a circle:
The life of an individual, of humanity as a whole, of all living nature on planet Earth, of the Solar System, the cosmos, and perhaps the universe as a whole can be understood as dynamic systems. What makes a system dynamic? Essentially, changes in its state and the rules that govern those changes. A dynamic system can be studied discretely as a sequence of successive “cross-sections”: a series of static states containing certain variables and connected by a temporal scale.
A sleepless summer night.
At daybreak, I opened the window. The freshness and coolness of the motionless air. Tree branches frozen as if in a still frame. Neither birdsong nor any other sound has yet broken the silence left by the night. The tops of the pines are lit by the sun’s rays passing through pink clouds. The sky is a clear, translucent blue, with a few light white clouds gently drifting towards me.
Suppose that
Then
A scientific discovery may begin with a fact that does not fit into the existing picture of the world. If the fact itself is well established, but the existing description of reality cannot explain it, this does not necessarily mean that the fact is wrong. Perhaps it is the description itself that is incomplete. I find it interesting to consider that an existing theory may be entirely correct within the domain it describes, while still remaining only one facet of a broader picture of reality.