Dogma free Yoga

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#46

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34420]That entire post was nothing more than rheotric Yulaw. You claim that I have misunderstood what I have read, but do not care to demonstrate what has been misunderstood. You are the claimant so the burden of proof lies with you.

I would advise you not to make any statements if you are not going to demonstrate it with a reason.[/QUOTE]

First it is spelled Rhetoric, but more on that later

I feel there is no burden of proof on me what so ever and your request for it does not produce a desire in me to provide it so… However if you whish to maintain your elitist and somewhat bigoted views then so be it, one cannot argue with a close mind, and I do very much recommend that you read, without prejudgment, the link I supplied in my previous post since I do believe you are very muck working form fear.

Also what I posted was not rhetoric.

Rhetoric is defined as (in English)

  1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
  2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
  3. the study of the effective use of language.
  4. the ability to use language effectively.
  5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
  6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
  7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
  8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.

I was presenting you with quotes from the vary philosophy you have claimed to have read and understood, And you expect me to take at your word that you have actually read or understood any of it, which if you have read it you most certainly do not understand it.

However I do like the way you pick a choose what to respond in order to dismiss people so you can maintain your flawed position

As for proof, you are the one making the accusations without any listed source so if you like provide them go ahead

But to the rest of my post you failed to notice with a bit of a change

you have more slightly racist and religious supremacist view of things and any further discussion on this would be a waste of time for us both

Your view is flawed or to be more to the point wrong and it is not my job to educate you since it would be a waste of time since you are already certain you know more than anyone else on the subject.

And lastly Hinduism is a cast system where by you are born into the cast ad you are suppose to stay there, is this not true… historically and religiously speaking? That to me does not sound perfect at all, but this is my opinion. Frankly I find the Hindu religion fascinating but, like many religions far from perfect

I shall waste no more time here, like I said, you can’t argue with a closed mind

#47

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;34422]Yulaw-

Thanks! I was beginning to feel alone out here! Buddhists are not nihilistic. Period.

But you must forgive my double negative in my above post. Oops![/QUOTE]

You might want to pick up some of the books by John Daido Loori, that is if you have not already read them

#48

Namaste Yulaw,

One of the greatest acts of rhetoric is pointing out somebodies spelling/typos online rater than addressing whatever point they are making.

Furthermore, a closed mind is also a mind that assumed the others mind is closed and makes no attempt to even find out if it is or not.

And lastly Hinduism is a cast system where by you are born into the cast ad you are suppose to stay there, is this not true… historically and religiously speaking?

This is not true and I think you need to read up more on Hinduism. The caste system is a strawman argument often made by Christian or Muslim critics of Hinduism without really trying to understand what the the caste system is and what Hindus themselves think of it.

The caste system is know as the varnashrama dharma in Hinduism is first mentioned in the Purusha Sukta in the Vedas. It describes society like a human being where its feet are the labourers, its legs are the merchants, it’s arms are the merchants and its head are the intellectuals. It is also described in the Gita where Krishna says that he himself has organized society according to the qualities of beings.

Now at different periods in this Hindu vision of society has been implemented in different ways by different states, and there are several dharma shastras which have recommended different ways to implement it at different times. Some have recommended that ones varna(occupation) should be decided by birth and some say that it should be decided by merit alone. The truth is both versions have been used in Indian history. It also true that the caste system was not rigid and social mobility was possible. It should be understood some of the major Risis who wrote the Vedas came from the families of labourers.

What you need to understand is that ancient India had various states and there was no religious authority to impose any religious order on Indian society such as a Church or a religious clergy.

Now if we are going to compare the varnasharma dharma to other social systems in their time period then it was a lot better. In feudal society for example most people were peasants and the few were were rich and had everything. In comparison in the varnashrama dharama system there were several occupational divisions and each occupation had certain rights. The brahmins who were at the top of society had rights to Vedic education, but they no rights no to owning any money. They lived of donations from the rest of society.

If you look at Indian society as it was during the time of the Mauraya empire there was nothing even comparable to the rights Indian citizens had anywhere in the world. For example women had the right to divorce, remarriage, inheritance of their husbands propety and the right to work and serve in the army.

The criticisms of the caste system, wife burning are frankly made by critics who have not done any homework at all on these issues and just give a knee jerk reaction.

In any case I am not going to claim Indian society is perfect. No society is ever perfect. I do claim however Hinduism is a perfect religion and an exact science, because it is not based on any dogma at all, but pure philosophy of the Vedas. The universalism with which the Vedas speak is not found in any of the Abrahmic religions. It says the entire world is a family, we should speak sweetly and softly to each other, sing together. It says “You are all great, not one of you small” This why it is called Aryan. It is noble and loving.

Now before you say why am I not speaking sweetly and softly then. This is because you are not speaking sweetly and softly with me.

#49

Surya Deva,

A brilliant summation to invalidate ‘hinduism is a caste system’, a reference to a now irrelevant ancient practice that existed in some pockets of India at some point in time used by some people to dwarf the time-less, universal, meta-scientific wisdom of Vedas inherited by Hindus. I second what you say as a born Hindu myself, who has not seen a trace of that ugliness in the modern times. What remains of the caste system today is only its political exploitation (about which less said the better) and its currency as one of the misconceptions initiated by the vested interests and carried by the casual minds.

#50

The caste system is know as the varnashrama dharma in Hinduism is first mentioned in the Purusha Sukta in the Vedas. It describes society like a human being where its feet are the labourers, its legs are the merchants, it’s arms are the merchants and its head are the intellectuals. It is also described in the Gita where Krishna says that he himself has organized society according to the qualities of beings.

Just a small correction there, “It’s arms are the government and civil services”

Surya Deva,

A brilliant summation to invalidate ‘hinduism is a caste system’, a reference to a now irrelevant ancient practice that existed in some pockets of India at some point in time used by some people to dwarf the time-less, universal, meta-scientific wisdom of Vedas inherited by Hindus. I second what you say as a born Hindu myself, who has not seen a trace of that ugliness in the modern times. What remains of the caste system today is only its political exploitation (about which less said the better) and its currency as one of the misconceptions initiated by the vested interests and carried by the casual minds.

Yes, it is a very cheap argument which is basically designed to make Hindus feel apologetic and bad about their religion. However, when a Christian and Muslim says this to me, I simply have to point back at the crusades, holy wars, inquisitions and oppression of women. And the difference is in this case is these were actual acts ordained by their religions. In India there was no body to ordain anything.

It is sad that are so many Western people who just associate Hinduism with caste system, cow worshipping and idol worship without doing any research on its philosophy and history and what its core tenets are. Yoga is very much at the heart of Hinduism.

#51

Yoga may be at the heart of Hinduism, but I doubt that Hinduism is at the heart of Yoga. Let’s take this gem of a quote of SD’s:

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34543]The caste system is know as the varnashrama dharma in Hinduism is first mentioned in the Purusha Sukta in the Vedas. It describes society like a human being where its feet are the labourers, its legs are the merchants, it’s arms are the merchants and its head are the intellectuals. It is also described in the Gita where Krishna says that he himself has organized society according to the qualities of beings.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think removing this slice from its context has changed its meaning. Let’s imagine for a moment I was born into this ideal Gitaic society, say…as a foot! Now, I’m a very special foot in that my big toe protrudes out far enough past my large belly and notices that the head (where all the smart guys live) seem to enjoy a pretty good life. Its mouth is munching on all sorts of goodies, and the legs and arms are lively with the fat settling into them. So me, the foot, decides that I want some of that too! When is it my turn to dive into a lovely Ladoo, instead of stubbing myself on hard stones.

I look around all of us idiots out here in the wild west and see that, although slavery and subjegation existed wholly in our past, there have been small provisions made to allow some who are born a special foot to become a big smiling head.

#52

[QUOTE=Yulaw;34538]You might want to pick up some of the books by John Daido Loori, that is if you have not already read them[/QUOTE]

I will, thank you Yulaw. Is there a particular one you would recommend?

Namaste

#53

Greeting Surya-

Thich Nhat Hanh: True self is non-self, the awareness that the self is made only of non-self elements. There’s no separation between self and other, and everything is interconnected. Once you are aware of that you are no longer caught in the idea that you are a separate entity.
Thich Nhat Hanh: It brings you insight. You know that your happiness and suffering depend on the happiness and suffering of others. That insight helps you not to do wrong things that will bring suffering to yourself and to other people. If you try to help your father to suffer less, you have a chance to suffer less. If you are able to help your son suffer less, then you, as a father, will suffer less. Thanks to the realization that there is no separate self, you realize that happiness and suffering are not individual matters. You see the nature of interconnectedness and you know that to protect yourself you have to protect the human beings around you.

That is the goal of the practice—to realize non-self and interconnectedness. This is not just an idea or something you understand intellectually. You have to apply it to your daily life. Therefore you need concentration to maintain this insight of non-self so it can guide you in every moment. Nowadays, scientists are able to see the nature of non-self in the brain, in the body, in everything. But what they have found doesn’t help them, because they cannot apply that insight to their daily lives. So they continue to suffer. That is why in Buddhism we speak of concentration. If you have the insight of non-self, if you have the insight of impermanence, you should make that insight into a concentration that you keep alive throughout the day. Then what you say, what you think, and what you do will then be in the light of that wisdom and you will avoid making mistakes and creating suffering.

The above is taken from an interview with Thich Nhat Hanh in which he shares the Buddhist view of self and non self. Pretty self explanatory.

As far as Buddhism being Nihilistic, again I say they are not! The middle way seeks to eliminate the 2 extremes of Eternalism and Nihilism. Buddhist practice loving kindness and compassion. This is not Nihilism at all, sorry!

Finally, Buddhist consider Nirvana absolute happiness, not nothingness like you suggest.

Again, I will restate the I appreciate and honor Hinduism like I do all religions.

#54

They are basically synonymous terms. Yoga is based on the tenets of Hindu religion dharma, karma, reincarnation, and moksha. It is simply the practical articulation of it. A set of practices based on dharmic principles in order to burn up karmas to stop reincarnation and to attain moksha. The reason I enjoin people on this forum to look into the history of Yoga is to understand how and why Yoga was developed. It was developed by the Vedic Risis for others to experience the Vedic truths they had discovered and documented in the Vedas.

I don’t think removing this slice from its context has changed its meaning. Let’s imagine for a moment I was born into this ideal Gitaic society, say…as a foot! Now, I’m a very special foot in that my big toe protrudes out far enough past my large belly and notices that the head (where all the smart guys live) seem to enjoy a pretty good life. Its mouth is munching on all sorts of goodies, and the legs and arms are lively with the fat settling into them. So me, the foot, decides that I want some of that too! When is it my turn to dive into a lovely Ladoo, instead of stubbing myself on hard stones.

The Vedic literature declare that all are born as Shudras(foot) and then to become either of the other castes one must be twice-born through their own actions and learnings. You cannot become a brahmana by birth. However, if you are fortunate enough to be born in the family of a brahmana due to your good karma, then you have the opportunity to become brahmana.

This is actually quite a scientific way of organizing society. Indeed, it is true that without education one cannot be anymore than a worker. If you get an education then you can get higher occupations.

The difference is depending on your occupations you are given certain rights. The Brahmana being the highest caste and the teachers of society, have no rights to capital or money. The Shudras being workers in society have rights to capital and earning a living but no right to higher education.

The Vedic society is an ideal functional and meritocratic society. I think we could benefit immensely by adopting this model and replacing our current capitalist society where the merchants have all the power.

#55

Namaste Lotus girl,

There is something even beyond interconnection, it is oneness. In oneness there is no two or three, there is no light and dark, no good and bad, no positive and negative. This is the Self. This is who we really are.

I do not disagree with Buddhism that our phenomenal self(the self as it appears to us) is indeed a dependent function, which depends on everything else. It is nothing more than a set of relationships made up of the skandas.

This is identical with the ahamkara(I-maker) which is a construction and a false self.

Buddha was not saying the self does not exist he was saying whatever we think that is the self does not exist. If you reject this pure I-am-ness then you do indeed have nihilism.

If I am really only a function of the world, contingent on everything else than life becomes completely pointless. I am, however, a spiritual being, then life has a purpose.

If you interpret the religion of Buddhism authentically then one cannot escape the conclusion that it does indeed deny the self. It actually says the self is momentary and is created and destroyed every moment. Now as I said does this mean I can go and rape somebody, and when the act is finished, I could just say, “It was not me who did the rape”

You will not be able to defend Buddhism from this charge.

#56

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34598]Namaste Lotus girl,

There is something even beyond interconnection, it is oneness. In oneness there is no two or three, there is no light and dark, no good and bad, no positive and negative. This is the Self. This is who we really are.

I do not disagree with Buddhism that our phenomenal self(the self as it appears to us) is indeed a dependent function, which depends on everything else. It is nothing more than a set of relationships made up of the skandas.

This is identical with the ahamkara(I-maker) which is a construction and a false self.

Buddha was not saying the self does not exist he was saying whatever we think that is the self does not exist. If you reject this pure I-am-ness then you do indeed have nihilism.

If I am really only a function of the world, contingent on everything else than life becomes completely pointless. I am, however, a spiritual being, then life has a purpose.

If you interpret the religion of Buddhism authentically then one cannot escape the conclusion that it does indeed deny the self. It actually says the self is momentary and is created and destroyed every moment. Now as I said does this mean I can go and rape somebody, and when the act is finished, I could just say, “It was not me who did the rape”

You will not be able to defend Buddhism from this charge.[/QUOTE]

I think you should go study AND LEARN a little Buddhism, also go study AND LEARN philosophy. You’ll save yourself a lot of typing on here once you have a better understanding of these subjects.

#57

I have studied Buddhism. I have a degree in Philosophy remember. Do you?

#58

Surya,

I really don’t understand how you interpret things. I want to, but it’s hard to say the least!

The Buddhas says the self does not exist because we are all interconnected. We are all part of everything. I think that is beautiful indeed! The Buddha and all the great Masters teach that the self is an illusion. The true self is the non-self awareness that the self is made only of non -self elements. There is no separation between self and other and everything is interconnected as quoted above. This is the very essence of Buddism. They reject 'I" in favor of “we” is another way to look at it. That doesn’t mean it is nihilistic at all! In looking again at the definition of Nihilism, in no way shape or form does buddhism fit. It is truly beautiful to think we are all interconnected, part of everything. They don’t believe in nonexistence or anarchy. They believe in laws and have morals and values. With that being said, I’m sure there are some buddhists out there who consider themselves Nihilistic just like there are differences in every religion.

We probably won’t ever agree or see eye to eye on this one, so let’s just leave it that we disagree. OK?

#59

Lotusgirl,

I am saying there is something beyond interconnection and that is oneness. The Buddha and the masters did not teach the Self is an illusion, they teach that the self as it appears to us is an illusion.

Here is a definition of the Self from the great Upanishads: When one hears nothing but the self, when one sees nothing but the self, when one tastes nothing but the self then one is immersed in the self only. The Self is all there is. Here there is no separation at all because everything is the self.

You are making a very fundamental mistake by misinterpreting Buddha’s teaching of anata for no self. If this is really what you believe then you cannot defend Buddhism from nihilism. Like I said if I rape somebody then later I can claim that “I” did not do it, because there is no “I” I am just a function remember? I can blame my skandas for what I did.

Let me ask you directly. If I raped somebody, can I be punished for that rape? If there is no “me” then who did the rape and who is being punished?

#60

OK, now I’m sold…check this out.
http://inmovies.ca/home/julia_roberts_converts_to_hinduism/7cee195b

#61

Greetings again Surya,

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34602]I have studied Buddhism. I have a degree in Philosophy remember. Do you?[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are quite educated. My husband has a Masters in Philosophy and is a Buddhist. It is how I became interested in Buddhism after being raised Catholic. He is the most brilliant person I have ever met. He agrees with everything I have shared with you about Buddhism.

Agree to disagree perhaps? Hope so, I’m getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing so much! LOL

#62

Originally Posted by FlexPenguin
Yoga may be at the heart of Hinduism, but I doubt that Hinduism is at the heart of Yoga

FlexPenguin,
Yours is a correct statement. In fact, the period of Yoga and Vedas, has been placed by many scholars between 5 to 10 thousand years ago (ref: “The Arctic Home of the Vedas” by Tilak) when no modern religion existed. One shouldn’t be surprised if traces of Yoga are found adapted in other religions as well. The difficulty with Hinduism is that it is not institutionalised and it puts under its wings a range of disparate philosophies. So, to lend it any identity in the context of other religions is bound to be misleading. An example of such forced labeling is the caste system which was a socio-political saga of a certain historical time-period which the vested interests of that time tried to authenticate with a twisted interpretation of some Hindu scriptures. Elaborating on that will be unnecessary, but only one correction in SuryaDeva’s interpretation of “twice-born” which is only a literal translation and the real meaning is “transformed” with the knowledge of Vedas. (And that is one basic problem with the Vedas when we understand about it through English translations made mostly by British “researchers” in occupied India who looked at everything through colored glasses and that is distortion and a huge loss in translation.)

But, as usual we are straying away from the origin of this thread. YogiAdam’s question was about use of contemporary Yoga and the veracity of fusing “good” things in Yoga with the other disciplines. (I attempted an answer earlier but I guess it was too arcane and boring; so nobody commented on it.)

Yoga has a similar problem as Hinduism. Even though, Sage Patanjali brilliantly attempted to document the essence of Raja-Yoga, the Vedic literature has many variations of the Yoga concept and many more technical details. Yoga is a generic name applied to all such techniques aimed at physical fitness to spiritual enlightenment as well as it is a term that describes the processes of healing, welness and spiritual transformation. Since no single individual can put her arms around this entire Yoga, one looks at one aspect and embraces it. The mistake she makes is in forgetting that it is just one aspect of Yoga.

To YogiAdam I would say this: Yoga is so vast, generic and touching the very basics of humanity that all of us do adapt only parts of it. Now trying to fuse them with other disciplines is one’s free choice. The beauty of Yoga is that in any form it only helps. What use is Yoga? - it is limited only by your readiness to change/ transform.

Most of what is discussed in these forums can be avoided, as even with a use of common word “Yoga” we are really addressing various parts/ aspects of it. There is also no need to bring in Hinduism or any other religion in the context of Yoga. What would be of immense help for the seekers visiting here is to know more from other people who know about the particular aspect, rather than getting caught in the cross-fire between two blind persons vehemently defending respective versions of the proverbial elephant.

#63

Namaste Suhas Tambe,

I think you might be buying into the propoganda theory of the Aryan Invasion theory, which today is widely discredited and not even Western scholars who originally proposed it, accept it anymore. It is according to this theory that a gulf between the Indus valley period(3000BCE and prior) and the Vedic period(1500BCE) is posited. However, this has been disproven by modern archeology by excavations at the Indus sites which have revealed Vedic features such fire altars, Vedic iconography and symbols, as well the townplanning is according to Vedic metrics(as prescribed in Kautaliyas Arthashastra) The clearest evidence that has emerged which is incontrovertible is the discovery of the Indus-Saraswati river which dried up in 2000BCE alongside many of the Indus settlements were described, but it is described in the Rig Veda as a thriving river and its geography and path is described. Therefore the Vedic people were in India long before 2000BCE. Now based on several different types of evidence the Rig Veda can be dated to be about 6000BCE. In other words there is no such gulf between a Vedic period and an Indus period.

The Aryan Invasion theory is a modern invention and it was created by Chrisitian missionaries to fit Indian history into a Judo-Christian historical timeframe which posited that human history begins in 4004BCE. The Indian historical records however presented a historical timeframe which went very far back into antiquity and recorded history going back to 10,000 years and gave very exact dates. The same history was recorded by the Greek historians which recorded Indian history going back 10,000 years. Now, with the help of scientific archaeology we have been able to confirm that this history is correct. We have even been able to find ancient cities like Dwaraka(or what is very likely Dwaraka) which were submerged as described in the Mahabharata.

In other words India and Hindusim is Vedic. There is no evidence of there being any gulf.

#64

Yes, you are quite educated. My husband has a Masters in Philosophy and is a Buddhist. It is how I became interested in Buddhism after being raised Catholic. He is the most brilliant person I have ever met. He agrees with everything I have shared with you about Buddhism.

Agree to disagree perhaps? Hope so, I’m getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing so much! LOL

Please convey my salutations to your husband. However, please ask him to answer the ethical problem I presented with the rape problem. As I think that it is philosophically indefensible if we accept that the Buddhist momentary theory of self. Who is it that rapes and who is that gets punished?

#65

I will Surya.