Dogma free Yoga

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#73

[QUOTE=Sasha;34637]Too categorically, i guess (as always, when we talk about differnces between people).
But some of truth is surely hiding here.
You can see it in many Eastern aphorisms - they try to develop general principles from special cases. Western`s mostly do the opposite thing - use general to succeed in special.

P.S. There was a test about how Asians and Europeans perceive faces.
It just proved the point.
Thinking like Eastern :)[/QUOTE]

Hi Sasha,
Could you provide link to this “face test”. Sounds interesting.
About “holistic-divisive” mind I think both aspects are necessary. Is it even related to brain hemispheres? With left more analytical and right more holistic? I guess we should learn how to use both and not identify with just one of them and praise one at cost of the other. That would be limiting our mind which is greater than its aspects (holistic/divisive and others).

#74

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34649]I don’t know anything about golf for example.[/QUOTE]

I’ll have to look for another partner in the upcoming Dharma tournament at Banff Springs.

Surya Deva, a lot of the conversation revolves around you. You are a very assertive person, no doubt. Your youth is full of ‘aha’ moments and you have chosen an ‘aha’ path. Bear in mind many of us have been down our ‘aha’ paths too, but keep propheteering. It’s a fun read.

#75

Surya Deva,

In other words if we accept the doctrine of no-self then we are fully justified to accept nihilism. It is a logical consequence of such a doctrine.

After much thought, I decided to go no further. Your response told me you are closed to wanting to understand. Neither my husband or myself agree with your understanding. There is nothing to be gained by further discussion. Let us make peace with that and move on!

Namaste!

#76

I think both you and your husband simply could not come up with a refutation of the arguments I put forward as they are logically watertight. I asked a simple question you have not responded to yet. Who is the one that rapes and who is the one that gets punished? Who was the one that worked hard for the masters degree and who is the one that has the masters degree.

Your no self philosophy is stupid. And you know it is.

#77

Nothing is watertight Surya. My husband and I have chosen not to respond because it makes no sense to keep this up. Opposing viewpoints and proof have not been accepted, so there is no point. Again, let us make peace with this and move on!

Namaste

#78

You cannot respond to my arguments because you can’t refute them. They are fatal arguments to your position. Like I have told you elsewhere, these arguments were so fatal to Buddhism in India, that Buddhism was eventually rejected in India. It was fair and square. In the formal debate culture in India the Buddhists went up against the Hindus and lost miserably.

I am going to tell you a funny story of my professor. In class we were talking about the self and there was some idiot in the class who proclaims to my professor “We are not the same person the next moment” At that point my professor only had one response, “Get outside of my class NOW” He shut up immediately, and my professor then elaborated, “If you are not the same person that got the A levels to be on my course, then you are an imposter and have no right to me here” At that point he was rendered completely speechless.

Similarly, if your husband is not the one who worked for that masters degree, then he is an imposter and does not deserve that master degree he is holding. Tell him to give it back to its rightful owner :wink:

#79

Let me frame it even more bluntly: EITHER your husband is an imposter or the no-self doctrine is FALSE.

#80

Let me frame it bluntly, please stop.

#81

Just accept the no-self doctrine is false and move on. Anyway I think I have disproven this doctrine beyond a reason of doubt now.

Buddhism loses. Hinduism wins :smiley:

#82

The following shows a formal debate in ancient India between Adisankara and a great rival Mimasa philosopher. I think many people here too arrogant to accept they have lost a debate should watch this and note that there is honor in losing as well.

Those who lose a debate but do not accept it are dishonorable. They will never know truth because they have blinded themselves.

#83

[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;34661]I’ll have to look for another partner in the upcoming Dharma tournament at Banff Springs.

Surya Deva, a lot of the conversation revolves around you. You are a very assertive person, no doubt. Your youth is full of ‘aha’ moments and you have chosen an ‘aha’ path. Bear in mind many of us have been down our ‘aha’ paths too, but keep propheteering. It’s a fun read.[/QUOTE]

Wow, your spot on!! He does have all these ‘aha’ moments. It’s always the ones who have figured it out, that clearly have no idea. Look at him having a go at Lotusgirl’s husband. I’d love to see how long SD would last at my local pub lol

#84

You’re just going to have to get use to my straight forward and blunt approach. I do not faff about and say it as it is - straight to the point.

I do not put on acts of feigning politeness. If I am convinced something is true or something is false I will say it direct.

Speaking truth is one of the yamas of Yoga. I am afraid many of you are not as polite as you try to put on. I can see through it :wink:

#85

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34699]Speaking truth is one of the yamas of Yoga. I am afraid many of you are not as polite as you try to put on. I can see through it ;)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but having a go at peoples families is not one of the yamas! Talking bulls@#t is not one of the yamas! Calling people weak for taking anti-depressants is not one of the yamas! Thinking your always right is not one of the yamas! Why don’t you blow the dust off your mat, and go actually do a bit of yoga, instead of preaching.

#86

Yeah, but having a go at peoples families is not one of the yamas!

I did not have a go at Lotusgirl’s husband. I merely presented an example to show that if she really does believe in the doctrine of no self then EITHER her husband is an imposter and the masters degree does not belong to him, because the one who worked for it is not the same person as the who has it OR the doctrine of no-self is false.

Talking bulls@#t is not one of the yamas!

I have not done any such thing. I have spoken facts since I’ve got here.

Calling people weak for taking anti-depressants is not one of the yamas!

So somebody who is taking anti-depressants is strong? Can you imagine a happy and successful person taking anti-depressants? You take anti-depressants if you have a weakess not if you’re strong.

Thinking your always right is not one of the yamas!

I am open to refutations all the time. I will revise my views based on the evidence presented. I am definitely right most of the time though, because I always think very carefully before I make a statement. I rarely get much wrong. If I am wrong I will readily admit it.

#87

Thanks to Wikipedia I don’t have to write it out.

In Buddhism, anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of “not-self”. In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really “I” or “mine”, and for this reason one should not cling to them.
In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikayas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups (“khandhas”) that serve as the objects of clinging, and the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikayas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living being “not-self”, that is, not “I” or “mine”, but that clinging to them as if they were “what I am”, or were “mine”, gives rise to unhappiness.
According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways, only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary.[1]

The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.

YAWN.

#88

I agree Scales.

Buddha is not denying the Self, he is denying what we think to be the self. He is denying “I-am-that-ness” not “I-am-ness”

It is a shame how Buddhists have distorted his teaching into the stupid life denying and nihilistic doctrine of no self.

#89

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34713]I agree Scales.

Buddha is not denying the Self, he is denying what we think to be the self. He is denying “I-am-that-ness” not “I-am-ness”

It is a shame how Buddhists have distorted his teaching into the stupid life denying and nihilistic doctrine of no self.[/QUOTE]

SD…

I honestly dont’ know any buddhists. So I can’t say one way or another if this 'there is no self" pervades Buddhism. I personally don’t view the teaching as such.

Like I’ve said before . . . I agree with alan watts . . . Buddhism is basically hinduism stripped for export.

Stripped of the Caste system. Stripped of reliance on the Brahmins. Stripped of the various Personifications of the Ultimate Reality. Stripped of all the mythology. Stripped of all the fluff.

Leaving the essentials.

#90

[QUOTE=Pawel;34651]Hi Sasha,
Could you provide link to this “face test”. Sounds interesting.
About “holistic-divisive” mind I think both aspects are necessary. Is it even related to brain hemispheres? With left more analytical and right more holistic? I guess we should learn how to use both and not identify with just one of them and praise one at cost of the other. That would be limiting our mind which is greater than its aspects (holistic/divisive and others).[/QUOTE]

Namaste Pawel,

Holistic mind and divisive mind are not equivalent, because while divisive mind does not have holistic mind, holistic mind has both.

#91

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34719]Namaste Pawel,

Holistic mind and divisive mind are not equivalent, because while divisive mind does not have holistic mind, holistic mind has both.[/QUOTE]

Namaste Surya,

Sure, if you define holistic mind as consisting divisive skills - sort of “over-mind”. I just thought I hear echo of “reductionism-holism” conflict. For me this conflict is a symptom of identity struggle which can lock up someone for long time. One can argue all life which type of description is more proper and never move beyond intellectual level of identity. And from more existential level of awareness there is no real conflict. Just two approaches trying hard to describe the overwhelming extraordinariness of existence. And it is as useful and correct as trying to explain mental concepts (e.g. mathematics) using feelings.

#92

[QUOTE=The Scales;34718]SD…

I honestly dont’ know any buddhists. So I can’t say one way or another if this 'there is no self" pervades Buddhism. I personally don’t view the teaching as such.

Like I’ve said before . . . I agree with alan watts . . . Buddhism is basically hinduism stripped for export.

Stripped of the Caste system. Stripped of reliance on the Brahmins. Stripped of the various Personifications of the Ultimate Reality. Stripped of all the mythology. Stripped of all the fluff.

Leaving the essentials.[/QUOTE]

It is basically the true meaning of Hinduism because it is closer to the Vedic times when there was no mythology, no birth based caste system, no personifications. All these different religions that came later like Shivaism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism came much later. I am not condemning them though because they still adhere to the old Vedic religion, they simply add loads of new stuff to it(idol worship, mythology, temples) There were no temples and idols in Vedic times.