I?ve always consider philosophy as theory and science as trial and error.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71290]Even if the borrowed knowledge is truth perspective is vital for application.[/QUOTE]
I like that.
To know what the enlightened do does not necessarily mean that you have to be enlightened yourself. Sure, there is going to be an artificiality in your actions of compassion vis-a-vis an enlightened person, but at least you’re on the right track. In the Jnana Yoga path, the actual experience is not necessary, so as long as you have the understanding why you should do some things and not do others. For example why devotion to Brahman is a good thing and why indulgence in sensory things is a bad thing.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;71289]“What is wrong with nonviolence as commandment, when yama and niyama are social discipline to follow (commandments) AHIMSA.”
There is nothing “wrong” with them, that is why I said that they are needed in the beginning. But I also wanted to make the distinction between the mechanical following of doctrines, and compassion as a natural quality that starts blooming in one’s consciousness. Keep in mind also that as long as one is following these commandments of “non-violence”, our ideas of non-violence are going to be highly relative. The idea of non-violence for Jainism is of a totally different kind that that of a Buddhist. The Jain will make an effort not even to eat vegetables, because to eat vegetables is considered too violent. They are still living beings. So they will restrict their diet to fruits, nuts, and milk, because these are by products of living beings rather than life itself. Some Jains will even wear a mask over their face, to prevent the killing of micro-organisms, even to step accidentally on an insect is enough to accumulate negative karma. Now all of these will simply be extremist to a Buddhist, or to a Hindu. Or in Zen, the master will strike the disciple as a skillful means to bring him to a state of no-mind, it is a method to cut through the habitual patterns of thought. This can be seen as “violent”, but actions have no quality by themselves, it is the consciousness which is running beneath action which determines it’s quality.
So when you leave the idea of “non-violence” open as a mere idea, it is an idea which is as relative as relativity can be. That is fine, but again, I feel there should be a distinction between our relative ideas of “non-violence”, and the natural quality of compassion that happens out of coming to sharper and sharper states of perception and experience. The reason why many Buddhas naturally became compassionate is because it was just a side-effect of having entered deeply enough into their own being, once your consciousness is in communion with existence, it is impossible not to be compassionate.[/QUOTE]
Well this is the problem .In this kali yuga age there are so much diversity from the truth. So the truth is diminished now.
[QUOTE=fakeyogis;71311]Well this is the problem .In this kali yuga age there are so much diversity from the truth. So the truth is diminished now.[/QUOTE]
Truth is not relative like time, space, human minds and such, when maya is revealed truth becomes self evident.
Yes desperate times call for desperate measures and thus the splinter of Tantra.
Suhas,
If what you are calling “yoga” is a philosophy, then we will have to look into what is the “true” yoga philosophy. Because if you look in the East - countless different traditions may have had different belief systems, but they have all made use of the technology of yoga. There are atheist Charvaka’s who have been practicing yoga, Dvaitists (dualists) who have been practicing yoga, Advaitists (non-dualists) who have been practicing yoga, Buddhists and all of their various sects of Buddhism - whether Mahayana, Theravada, Vajranayana, Zen, have been practicing yoga, Jains have been practicing yoga, Sikhs have been practicing yoga - all have been practicing yoga alike. Their ideas may have been different, their interpretations may have been different, their belief systems may have been different, their philosophies may have been different - but all have made use of the same inner science and technology. So if you insist that “yoga” is a philosophy - then we will have to come to an agreement as to what is the ultimate and absolute system of yoga philosophy. Is it that of the Buddhists ? The Jains ? The Sikhs ? The atheist Charvakas ? Samkhya ? Dvaita ? Advaita ? The tantric followers of the Shakti or Shavaite sects ? The yoga of the Pashupata sect ? The yoga of the Nath traditions ? The Vajrayana yogas - the Six yogas of Naropa or Tilopa ?
All of these systems that I have mentioned have different philosophies and interpretations as far as their understanding of existence is concerned, yet they have all embraced the science of yoga. So if you insist that yoga is a philosophy, then we will have to look into this very complicated matter as to what is the “true” yoga philosophy, as to which organized tradition will hold the monopoly of yoga.
Amir,
Philosophy is intuitive, holistic and axiomatic and states the truth as the underlying cause of any phenomenon. Science is rationalized knowledge derived from isolating and analyzing the components of a phenomenon with inference or speculation of its underlying cause. Science appears real because it is closer to human cognitive processes of separating and identifying. Philosophy appears paradoxical and distant until each of its axioms are self-validated. Technology as tools and methods, serves both ? science, as tools of inquiry and methods of repeating the phenomenon; philosophy, as tools and methods of self-realization.
Your description of a variety of traditions shows ‘selective’ adaptation of yoga technology, not of the wholesale philosophy. Their ‘selection’ pre-supposes a scientific position differing from others in the then version of scientific truth. Yet that also means existence of a meta-theory that constitutes yoga’s true philosophy, from which different strands become visible as science discovers them. Looking back, all history looks like a huge single box with diffused circumstantial backdrop of each time period and we tend to read the dated appearances absolutely.
That there should be One ?super? philosophy truer than all others is a human need conditioned by the way we think. Philosophy cannot be utopian to exist for its own sake. And philosophy of life, as yoga is, cannot be anything but alive. Its useless if fictional. Science and technology facilitate the practice. Now, practice evolves; while philosophy is unveiled. Practice does precede philosophy in a way purely in an evolutionary sense. Philosophy then chisels it into acceptable and non-acceptable practices and technology develops. For example, yoga as practiced before yoga sutra had a long tradition of variety. It got codified in sutras to incarnate as yoga philosophy. Today?s flourish of yoga styles shows how practice has found its own ways to experiment, innovate, simplify, change the technology ? some works, some doesn?t. Need will again arise to go back to the basics, redefine them and resurrect the philosophy.
Let me reiterate what I said earlier, Yoga is a philosophy, as a holistic construct of unchanging underlying basic concepts, it is ALSO an evolving science that connects ground-level world of details with the meta level essence and ALSO a technology that hands over tools to the seeker to make the philosophy a ?self-realized truth? at each ascending level. Beauty of yoga (of yoga sutra) is that it is philosophy, science and technology, rolled in one. Perhaps it is that ?true? yoga philosophy.
that you all for sharing your thoughts…
well…still seems like compassion is not a key concept in yoga, since key concept of yoga is enlightening…
i observe that in Christianity (especially the orthodox branch) compassion is one of the key to the “heaven”. One of the rule is “give your last shirt to the one who need it”…and some of them do.
Yoga teachers (at least at the places I looked:) that we can be compassionate but not to extend that we exhaust our own resources. Christ taught different…to help others even at your own expence…
Religion or system of believe is a part of culture and influence the behavior.
Through observations and study i came to the conclusion ( not out of judgement, but purely out of curiosity) that Christians are more compassionate than yogis.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;71407]well…still seems like compassion is not a key concept in yoga, since key concept of yoga is enlightening…[/QUOTE]
Unless one is helping others move beyond the need for help does it real help?
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71422]Unless one is helping others move beyond the need for help does it real help?[/QUOTE]
sure it is…but sometimes it requires lot of work and commitment from both parties…not everyone can do it
[QUOTE=CityMonk;71424]sure it is…but sometimes it requires lot of work and commitment from both parties…not everyone can do it[/QUOTE]
It seems you?re referring more of human sympathy, a like/dislike of the human mind, not absolute compassion, this is why I previously posted Maharaj?s quote above in this thread, he described more eloquently than I could and it?s why I posted my original comment in this thread since it?s the bases of absolute compassion, otherwise you?re at the mercy of the relative individual mind and that?s dangerous since all 7 billion human minds occupying the planet have different likes/dislikes/experiences etc., each generating separate illusionary beliefs that come into conflict causing so much trouble in the world. Everything is perfect, nothing is happening that should not be happening, suffering is a state mind, to become aware of that which you?ve never been separate, true inner nature this truth becomes self evident. By all means help someone if you like but practice having no sense of wellbeing/guilt from your actions/non-actions, things happen and you?re part of the happening, don?t judge or expect others to think the same as you, minds are relative, Truth is not.
just found on FB
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71426]It seems you?re referring more of human sympathy, a like/dislike of the human mind, not absolute compassion,.[/QUOTE]
maybe you are more advanced on your spiritual path…
not sure what you mean by [U]absolute[/U] compassion … and what is the difference between the absolute one and the not absolute one…
i aware only about one kind of compassion which brings desire to help to one who is suffering…
sending an injured person a good thinking and prayers might be good too…but at the very moment i guess he would benefit more from gauze and some antiseptic.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;71428]sending an injured person a good thinking and prayers might be good too…but at the very moment i guess he would benefit more from gauze and some antiseptic.;)[/QUOTE]
I don?t do good thinking or prayers but if they’re still in need and you email your name, address I?ll send you a check. ray_killeen@yahoo.com
[QUOTE=CityMonk;71427]just found on FB[/QUOTE]
yes beliefs are worthless.
“i aware only about one kind of compassion which brings desire to help to one who is suffering…”
Is this desire to help one’s suffering coming out an identification with one’s ego ? If it is, then on the outside your actions may appear very compassionate, but it is just for the sake of nourishing the ego. One thing we have to understand along the path is to look beyond appearances. Our mind is so easily deceived by appearances, that very rarely do we bother to penetrate beneath the surface. We focus on things which are not essential at the expense of the essential, we keep our eyes obsessed over the symptoms but never address the root causes. The core of compassion lies not in our actions, or our desire to help others. Action may happen as a consequence, the desire to help others may happen as a consequence, but this is still not addressing the core of what gives birth to compassion.