“Asanas have nothing to do with yoga, neither does pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras, yantras, or a thousand and one different techniques of meditation.”
Here is someone who is trying to reduce the entire yoga tradition to a various forms of meditation. Only someone who has completely misunderstood the broader scope of Bharata Dharma can come up with something like that.
It is a semantic problem. Yoga does not mean just union. Just one example : In Yoga sutras according to what are considered “classical” commentators such as Vijnana Bhikshu and Vacaspati Mishra, Yoga stems from the Sanskrit root [I]yuj[/I] with the meaning of concentration and not from the root [I]yujir[/I] which implies union. And it makes sense within the Yoga Sutra metaphysics as the goal is the separation between Purusha and Prakriti. In other contexts, the emphasis lies on union. Yoga is a polysemic word, hence the common confusion about concepts expressed by homonyms.
Philippe
[QUOTE=Senin;62834]Hmmm, for you, the trip would be the destination. For me, the trip would be the journey.
Frankly, Amir, I think you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
There may be a time when the journey is an important part of the trip but soon as one loses site of the destination (purpose) the journey may end?journey-destination, perhaps one does not exist without the other?
If someone goes through the tedious effort to explain things in a straightforward precise logical manor, expanding and elaborating difficult concepts without the use of beliefs, faith, acceptance or ego it may be worth considering before disregarding and then respond and present your understanding in a similar manor?
If one sincerely wants to communicate with someone who operates beyond ego then one must move beyond ego?
[QUOTE=Philippe*;62836]It is a semantic problem. Yoga does not mean just union. Just one example : In Yoga sutras according to what are considered “classical” commentators such as Vijnana Bhikshu and Vacaspati Mishra, Yoga stems from the Sanskrit root [I]yuj[/I] with the meaning of concentration and not from the root [I]yujir[/I] which implies union. And it makes sense within the Yoga Sutra metaphysics as the goal is the separation between Purusha and Prakriti. In other contexts, the emphasis lies on union. Yoga is a polysemic word, hence the common confusion about concepts expressed by homonyms.
Philippe[/QUOTE]
You are right, the word yoga in the Bhagavad Gita alone is explained in many different ways (yoga karmasu kaushalam, samatvam yoga uchyate etc). The popular translation of union is not found in the sutras of patanjali, but is mentioned in the yoga yajnavalkya samhita. The word raja yoga itself can have different meanings too. Vivekananda used it to describe ashtanga yoga, but in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika the word raja yoga is used differently.
[QUOTE=Philippe*;62836]It is a semantic problem. Yoga does not mean just union. Just one example : In Yoga sutras according to what are considered “classical” commentators such as Vijnana Bhikshu and Vacaspati Mishra, Yoga stems from the Sanskrit root [I]yuj[/I] with the meaning of concentration and not from the root [I]yujir[/I] which implies union. And it makes sense within the Yoga Sutra metaphysics as the goal is the separation between Purusha and Prakriti. In other contexts, the emphasis lies on union. Yoga is a polysemic word, hence the common confusion about concepts expressed by homonyms.
Philippe[/QUOTE]
Adding to the number of meanings of the term yoga for further consideration; cut and pasted below from the internet;
[I]Yoga means to “unite” or “join” the aspects of ourselves which were never really divided in the first place. It also means to “yoke” or to engage ourselves in a self-training program. Yoga means working with each of the levels or aspects of our being individually, and then unifying all of those into their original whole, or Yoga. Yoga is a Sanskrit word coming from the root “yuj” and relates to both the processes or practices referred to as Yoga and also the goal itself, which is also called Yoga. As the goal, the word Yoga is virtually one and the same with the word Samadhi, the deep, transcendent realization of the highest truth or reality.
Definition of Yoga: The first four sutras define Yoga, with that definition being expanded upon in the other sutras. In a systematic process of meditation, you gradually move your attention inward, through all the levels of your being, gaining mastery along the way. Eventually you come to rest in your true nature, which is beyond all of those levels. This action and the realization of this center of consciousness, is the meaning of Yoga.
Yoga is Samadhi, in the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Pata?jali: Yoga means union, literally, to yoke, from the root yuj, which means to join or to integrate. It means to bring together the aspects of ourselves that were never divided in the first place. It means to attain direct experience of the core of that preexisting holistic being who we truly are at the deepest level, and that is attained through samadhi.
Self-realization, the highest goal of Yoga.[/I]
Senin,
Asana, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras and yantras are NOT yoga.
No, yoga, as an experience, is a state of consciousness. But if you are referring to yoga in terms of certain techniques and methods towards this realization - then yes asanas, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mantras, yantras or none of these can be involved. Words are such, that they will mean whatever one wants them to mean. When I have made the distinction - it was simply to make it clear that there is a tremendous difference between the mechanical practice of techniques to nourish ones own egotism, and the kind of practice which is as a ladder towards ones liberation. If you think that the essence of yoga has nothing to do with any of these techniques, then one has missed the essential matter - and you can practice for eternities and not have even a single insight into what yoga is.
It is a semantic problem. Yoga does not mean just union.
Then let us forget about the word completely, it is created more complications rather than solving them. It is simply enough to know that there is a kind of practice which leads you towards more and more delusion, and there is a kind of practice which leads towards more awareness. Outwardly, they appear the same.
"Here is someone who is trying to reduce the entire yoga tradition to a various forms of meditation. "
Sarva,
You have misunderstood the message. If you look back you will see that I have said that even a thousand and one forms of meditation have very little to do with the experience of yoga, it is not a matter of meditation. You can come to your awakening without any meditation at all.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62874]Senin,
Asana, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras and yantras are NOT yoga.
No, yoga, as an experience, is a state of consciousness. But if you are referring to yoga in terms of certain techniques and methods towards this realization - then yes asanas, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mantras, yantras or none of these can be involved. Words are such, that they will mean whatever one wants them to mean. When I have made the distinction - it was simply to make it clear that there is a tremendous difference between the mechanical practice of techniques to nourish ones own egotism, and the kind of practice which is as a ladder towards ones liberation. If you think that the essence of yoga has nothing to do with any of these techniques, then one has missed the essential matter - and you can practice for eternities and not have even a single insight into what yoga is.[/QUOTE]
Amir, you seem very, um, opinionated.
I refer to yoga as certain methods towards this realization.
When I hear “mechanical practice of techniques to nourish ones own egotism,” I think, what is the ego that authored this? It is an ego-self writing these words, not a True Self.
Yoga seems to be a path, layed down by the ancients (and not so ancient) for a realization. A walk down this path is yoga.
Astanga-Yoga ist the eightfold path of yoga, described by the ancient sage Rishi Patanjali in the Yogasturas more than 2000 years ago. So the original Astanga-Yoga has nothing to do with the modern inventions like Astanga-Vinyasa-Yoga, which means “special Astanga-Yoga”.
The original Astanga-Yoga describes the eight limbs of yoga, that build up the path to the state of yoga and finally to mukti. To learn the real Astanga-Yoga i can only encourage you to study the Yogasturas of Patananjali.
Senin,
I refer to yoga as certain methods towards this realization.
Any method which leads to this realization, can be called a method of yoga. Be careful to form any fixed ideas about what the method towards realization`is. If it is through meditation, then it is Raja Yoga. If it is through emotion, it is Bhakti yoga. If it is through physical action in the world, it is Karma Yoga. If it is through transformation of the energies of the subtle body, it is referred to as kundalini yoga. If it is through concentration upon a mantra, then it is Mantra Yoga. If it is through development of your inner ears to hear the `Soundless Sound` of Om which lies at the core of your own being, then it is Nada Yoga. If it is through concentration upon various forms of inner light, then it is known as Trataka Yoga. If it is even through channeling your hatred, it is known as Dvesha Yoga, the Yoga of Hatred. And we can continue looking at how many different forms ofyoga`` there are - there have been so many paths towards enlightenment that even if you had a million lifetimes, you would not be able to master all of them. Any method at all that leads towards your realization of your true nature can be referred to as a method towards yoga.
`When I hear “mechanical practice of techniques to nourish ones own egotism,”
Yes, if you are involved in any method without awareness, then it is just mechanical. Rather than freeing you of your conditioning, such a practice will only help strengthen your conditioning and may in fact only contribute to your sufferings.
Yoga seems to be a path, layed down by the ancients (and not so ancient) for a realization.
Yoga is an inner path. Because there are different methods to turn inwards, there are countless different forms of yoga. So as a Path, what we call Yoga can refer to just about any path towards realization. As an experience, the word itself means Union. When you come to a state of consciousness where the finite and the infinite merge as One in your perception, that is the state of Yoga.
And it makes sense within the Yoga Sutra metaphysics as the goal is the separation between Purusha and Prakriti.
Philip,
It would probably be useful to separate the philosophy which Patanjali is speaking about from the science and technology which we refer to as yoga. Patanjali was speaking from a certain philosophical perspective - that everything in existence is dualistic, there is always a split between what one calls Purusha and Prakriti. Yoga, as a science, has little to do with any philosophy or belief system - in exactly the same way that modern science has little to do with any belief system. Yoga, as a method, is just pure technology. That is why Buddhists have been practicing the technology, Hindus have been practicing yoga, Sikhs have been practicing yoga, Jains have been practicing yoga, Charvaka atheists have been practicing yoga, because yoga, as a method towards realization, just refers to the inner sciences towards ones enlightenment. It is just like learning how to use your computer, or learning how to use any other technology. So to me - it is very important that we do not mix up the two - that science and technology is one thing, philosophy is something else entirely. Yoga, as a science, has nothing to do with philosophy - it is cutting through all one-sided philosophies, belief systems, and coming to a direct perception of Truth. Truth is universal, it does not belong to any organized system of thought, and by it`s very nature, it cannot be organized. The mind can organize it, the mind can create countless interpretations about it, or the mind can also raise a finger to the moon - but the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself.
Yoga, as a science, has nothing to do with philosophy.
Science and philosophy stand divorced only in the minds of modern scientists who refuse to dwell in subtle domains for want of a standard methodology of inquiry, though very often they land themselves at the edge of their comfort zones and run out of the wherewithal in dealing with the subtle phenomena. Philosophy dealing with the subtle then remains a futile wordplay and intellectual entertainment.
Not so with Yoga Sutra. Here philosophy does not stand on its own and does not appear to be divorced. It is born in the process of synthesis of apparently disparate individual experiences that are intrinsically same. The individual experiences of Yoga?s practicing scientists of yesteryears found it necessary to articulate the experiences, systematize the processes, rationalize the approaches and identify their common denominators, as a guidebook for the students and documentation for the archives. That is the philosophy Yoga Sutra contains. There is not a word in that masterpiece that cannot be experienced and not a single state of experience that is not explained.
Yoga Sutra has undertaken risk of articulating an abstract thing like an ?experience?. But the genius of Patanjali has not left the words open to many interpretations. If one approaches the entire paradigm holistically, as one should, the terms used in Yoga Sutra deliver precise meaning.
It presents Yoga as a technology, a process as well as a goal, each valid in its own way. Yes, yoga means ?union? or ?being one with pure consciousness? and that is a state impossible to contain in words. But, for reaching that culmination there are a series of unions formed on the way. Perception itself is a fundamental union between the Perceiver and the perceived Object and the process of union extends from there. However, the nature of this union is counter-evolutionary or innvolutionary where gross re-merges in the subtle. That requires gross to be purified enough to be eligible to re-merge and purification needs techniques. So, even though the highest yoga is a transcendental state, that is a result of a yoga process that is enabled by the yoga techniques. None is indispensable.
Yoga Sutra emerged as a documentation of yoga as practiced for several hundreds of years before. It derives a philosophical base from Samkhya, but makes exceptions when theory and practice come to crossroads. The whole structure of theory and practice has a baseline of duality because that?s the only way awareness can be explained. But in the final state of ?isolated unity? where ?one is consciousness? (unaware of it) Yoga Sutra departs from Samkhya to describe it a non-dual state. This is just one instance where yoga philosophy blends with the experience and doesn?t need to stand apart.
Suhas,
Here philosophy does not stand on its own and does not appear to be divorced.
Is not philosophy an interpretation of things through the mind ? Depending on which school of philosophy you belong to, you are going to have different ideas and opinions on the matter. In the East, there have been as many different philosophies and belief systems associated with the technology of yoga as one can imagine. Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), the atheism of the Charvakas, Samkhya, Brahmanism, Buddhism with its various different sects, Jainism, Sikhism, the philosophies which have happened in the Tantric traditions, and so on - there are as many different philosophies as one can conceive, but yoga has always been something which has been practiced regardless of whether you are Hindu or Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, atheist or theist - it doesn`t matter. If you insist that yoga is something which belongs to a particular belief system, then you will have to look into what is the real yoga. And of course, now you have a whole ocean of things to look into - because yoga has penetrated itself into almost every belief system, tradition, and philosophy in India.
For those who entertain themselves with words, Truth can be organized as a philosophy. For those who have awakened and seen directly into the truth of their own being, they know very well that Truth is inexpressible. The moment you say anything about it, you have already fallen into delusion. This is not a dimension to be understood through the mind. Naturally, if your understanding depends on borrowed knowledge, then you will try to throw all kinds of hooks and nets on the ungraspable. But if you have come to a direct experience, there is only a wordless silence which is such a revelation, that it will reduce all of one’s theories and beliefs to dust.
“The whole structure of theory and practice has a baseline of duality because that’s the only way awareness can be explained”
That is not the reason why it is a dualistic philosophy. It is is because that is the conclusion that this philosophy has come to.
"This is just one instance where yoga philosophy blends with the experience and doesn’t need to stand apart. "
We have already said that the practice of yoga has been widespread. Buddhists have practiced yoga. Jains have practiced yoga. Sikhs have practiced yoga. Hindus have practiced yoga. Almost every tradition that has happened in India - though their belief systems may have been different, they have all practiced yoga. So please, tell me, what is “yoga philosophy” ?
So please, tell me, what is “yoga philosophy” ?
I am not a student of philosophy and have only studied Yoga Sutra. That’s why I kept my narrative to that book alone. But I will attempt my version.
First there is occurance of a phenomenon. One attempts to comprehend it (thinking), cognize it (context of time and space), rationalize it (personalize), and express it (verbalize) to make that as one’s experience as “what”. But it becomes one of a kind, personal, subjective, hard to articulate experience, as all these perception processes fail to define the “how”.
But occurances do happen and experiences are perceived. However, humans are not designed for randomness of experiences. They need to repeat pleasurable experiences and avoid painful ones. And for that they need to know the “why” of each phenomenon. Initial answers are tentative and create two components, “known” and “unknown”. The known becomes repeatable, a theory and the unknown is embraced with an axiom that evolves into philosophy. So, initially philosophy covers what theory can’t and together lay down norms and methods (how) to repeat the experience (what).
The above is more true for physical phenomena than subtle which Yoga Sutra addresses. Hence, if the experiencer remains on the physical plane and tries to evaluate the theory/philosophy of the subtle, it fails. But when the experiencer experiences on the subtle plane itself the theory/philosophy make sense.
With deeper experiencing one also expands the known or shrinks the unknown to merge theory with philosophy. When the axioms are self-validated, as Yoga Sutra asks us to, the philosophy becomes the practice.
I am a yoga practitioner and Yoga Sutra serves a dependable workbook of “what” and “how” and a guidebook of understandable “why” that supports the practice. That’s enough for me.
yoga philosophy, is only good if we can practice it to live the bliss, ?here and now? but not as a workbook, for “what” and “how” That, is auto matic .
Senin,
“I get it now, Amir. Asana, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras and yantras are NOT yoga.”
All these processes by themselves are just superficial. If that is the case, then any fool who utters a mantra or bends his body in a particular way is practice “yoga”. All of these yoga centers in the West are also practicing “yoga” - even though they have tremendously distorted the science. What was once a science and technology to one’s enlightenment has been reduced to a mere series of physical exercises.
Until one’s whole life has been set aflame with one-pointedness towards coming to insight into yourself as you are, there can be no practice of so called “yoga”. You are far too focused on outer appearances at the expense of missing the essentials. You can practice all of these techniques for ages, and still not have a single drop of authentic insight into what “yoga” is. Do you think that just by twisting the body in a particular way, or muttering a mantra, that means you know anything about yoga ? If that is the case - then just by the act of bowing down, you can be humble. Just by sitting silently, you can become still. But you can bow down without even a particle of gratitude or humility, and you can sit silently with a great storm exploding within yourself.
Drop your obsession about the non-essentials, and strike to the essential.
“Hmmm, for you, the trip would be the destination. For me, the trip would be the journey.”
Forget about the trip and the destination, just come to an understanding of yourself from the very space in which you are living.
Sarvangalamangala,
“Here is someone who is trying to reduce the entire yoga tradition to a various forms of meditation. Only someone who has completely misunderstood the broader scope of Bharata Dharma can come up with something like that.”
Here is somebody with poor English who has read so carelessly without taking the time to understand what has been said. I did not reduce yoga to various forms of meditation, my original message was in fact saying that what is called “yoga” is far more than any of those techniques that people usually think about when they hear the word “yoga”.
Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā
You say this is common in indian history do you mean that papers get eaten by rats or that most indian yogis are lying?