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
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.
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.
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?
I will Surya.
OK SD, here it goes.
Nothing like a heavy philosophical conversation after dinner>>>.hum.
The ? is really about responsibility. One of the central purposes of Buddhism is to direct the energy of an individual away from suffering and the cause of suffering. If someone rapes an individual they are amplifying suffering. Conditions that preceded and determined the make up of the person who did the rape were also the result of suffering and that is the Wheel of Samsara in which suffering is being perpetuated within. While there is no individual self responsible for actions there is a “person-ing” process that was caused by karma. The reason the Buddha decided to do something after his enlightenment is he realized that people have the ability to redirect their karma and purify it until they reach the point that they can leave the wheel. So if someone commits a crime within Samsara, then the conditions of Samsara apply. The stronger the action, the more energetic the action and the stronger the karma.
I am-ness is associated with ego in Buddhism. The ego has attachments like power and control.(which are know to be reasons for rape) Buddhism wants to shed the ego or self of those attachments. Therefore they would not commit a rape like you have described. (I realize I cannot categorically say, “No Buddhist would ever rape an individual”. Just like I cannot say no christian would ever commit adultery)
There you have it!
Namaste,
Thank you to your husband for the response.
I must say I do not think it vindicates Buddhism from my charge of nihilism. On one hand we have the doctine of “no-self” and then on the other hand we have the beautiful ideal of eradicating suffering for the entire world. Now my problem is this whose suffering are you eradicating if there is no self? You cannot certainly be eradicating your own suffering because there is no real you. You also cannot be eradicating the suffering of anybody else, because there is no real them. Therefore how can one reconcile this beautiful ideal of ending suffering for all with the doctrine of no self?
If I want to motivate somebody to do something good such as doing charity or not doing something bad such as rape, I would have to first convince them of the benefits and costs of their actions to them. If I say to them, however, that the agent who does the action does not endure, so the one who reaps the benefits or the costs of the action is not them, how will I motivate them to do something good or not do something bad?
I can visualise myself telling my child in the future, “Hey boy/girl, you do not really exist so whatever you do, it is not you doing it” Then the next moment my boy/girl goes and does something very naughty. I scold them and they retort, "It was not me who did it"
I can visualise myself later telling my child when he/she grows up be a teenager, “Listen, I want you to study hard at school” and then them retorting “Why? The one that gets the grades is not me, so why should I”
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.
I look forward to how your husband will respond to this.
I am now going to demonstrate why this doctrine of no self is completely illogical. It is first of all counter-intuitive to human psychology where the human always does something only if there is a benefit for them. It can be a material benefit or a spiritual benefit, but if there is nothing in it for them they will not act. Secondly, it is contradicted by the fact of memory. I remember that I am the same person that existed 5 min ago, 5 hours ago, 5 days ago and 5 years ago. I remember most of my life and I remember the goals I set for myself. I remember my parents, my friends and relatives.
When I did my degree it was I who worked hard for it and it was I who got rewarded for it. Now how does your husband explain his Masters? If he is not the one that worked for it then how can he say that it is his?
There is a very beautiful argument in Vedanta against this no-self doctrine. The fact is that there is perception of the world. If there is perception then there must be a perceiver. Just as if there is vision then there must be somebody who sees. Or if there is knowledge there must be a knower. If we doubt the perceiver, seer and knower, then there must be something that can doubt the the perceiver, seer and knower and therefore the existence of the perceiver, seer and knower is established.
Another argument from Vedanta is that “I-am-ness” endures from moment to moment. All that ever changes is the content of “I-am-ness”. About 5 min ago I was aware of myself reading an electronic book. Now I am aware of myself as reading and responding to your post. The only thing that has changed is the activity I was aware of. The fact that awareness has endured has not changed. It has never changed in my entire life. When I was 5 I was aware of my body as a 5 year old. Today I am am aware of my body as a 30 year old. Therefore “I-am-ness” has never changed.
Now revisiting the citation you made from Buddha. Buddha said anata is I am perception, I am sensation etc. That is not the same as “I-am-ness” That is “I-am-that-ness” So Buddha is not actually denying the self he is denying the predicates of the self. He is saying that self is predicateless. However to deny the actual subject of the predicates would result in absolute nothingness and nothingness cannot be the support of anything.
Therefore I submit to you that you have fundamentally misunderstood Buddha’s teaching. This teaching is not logical and not supported by experience. What Buddha taught was that I-am-that-ness does not exist. He did not teach I-am-ness does not exist. In fact he taught it did exist because he said that after reaching enlightenment one becomes a Buddha and the Buddhas continue to exist in higher planes of reality. Therefore he never denied “I-am-ness” but rather asserted it.
Hindusim teaches exactly the same doctrine Buddha taught. That we are not “I-am-that-ness” but we are in fact the pure “I-am-ness” The word that both Buddha and Hindus use for that “I-am-that-ness” is ahamkara(I-maker), the false ego.
Thank you for your response. It’s late and I will re-read it in the morning and share your thoughts with my husband. Night.
I thought I would share this beautiful gem of a poem by Sankara, the Atma Shatakam, who is teaching the same doctrine Buddha taught:
I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego,
nor the reflections of inner self (chitta).
I am not the five senses.
I am beyond that.
I am not the ether, nor the earth,
nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements).
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Neither can I be termed as energy (prana),
nor five types of breath (vayus)
nor the seven material essences,
nor the five coverings (pancha-kosha).
Neither am I the five instruments of elimination,
procreation, motion, grasping, or speaking.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,
nor greed,
nor delusion,
nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.
I have no duty (dharma),
nor any money,
nor any desire (kama),
nor even liberation (moksha).
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
I have neither merit (virtue),
nor demerit (vice).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.
I do not need mantras, holy places,
scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas).
I am none of the triad of
the observer or one who experiences,
the process of observing or experiencing,
or any object being observed or experienced.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
I do not have fear of death,
as I do not have death.
I have no separation from my true self,
no doubt about my existence,
nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth.
I have no father or mother,
nor did I have a birth.
I am not the relative,
nor the friend,
nor the guru,
nor the disciple.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
I am all pervasive.
I am without any attributes,
and without any form.
I have neither attachment to the world,
nor to liberation (mukti).
I have no wishes for anything
because I am everything,
everywhere,
every time,
always in equilibrium.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;34605]OK, now I’m sold…check this out.
http://inmovies.ca/home/julia_roberts_converts_to_hinduism/7cee195b[/QUOTE]
It is inevitable. My prophecy will come true that America will be Hindu by the end of this century. It is the religion of the 21st century for scientific and spiritual people. The Abrahamic religons will be assimilated by Hinduism.
More and more people will accept in America that Jesus was a master, one of many masters. They will accept Krishna, Buddha and many masters. They will accept reincarnation. They will accept dharma. They will accept Yoga both its theory and practice.
The Sat yuga will return to this planet and Vedic dharma will once again be the one world religion like it was in the past.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34392]The Eastern mind is holistic and the Western mind is divisive.[/QUOTE]
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=Surya Deva;34602]I have studied Buddhism. I have a degree in Philosophy remember. Do you?[/QUOTE]
Yes… I didn’t suggest to study Buddhism and Philosophy, I suggested to study AND LEARN… It’s the learning bit that’s important. No offense, but your grasp of Buddhism is very weak indeed, and for a philosopher to assert that things can be known with 100% certainty, is just ridiculous. I’m not having a go at you personally. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing much about some things. I don’t know anything about golf for example.
[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).
[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.
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!
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.
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
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 
Let me frame it even more bluntly: EITHER your husband is an imposter or the no-self doctrine is FALSE.
Let me frame it bluntly, please stop.