[QUOTE=IsmailaGodHasHeard;66790] Yoga is what you want it to be.
[/QUOTE]
Most certainly, I have heard that for many yoga moghuls it was a way to get rich quick, for many young guys it is a way to pick up chicks, while for others it is way to get in shape without having to do actual exercise. These reasons all supersede whatever the hell it was those silly Indians did for millenia, because objectively yoga is what you want it to be.
[QUOTE=specialt;68949]I practice just for the health benefits, that’s it.[/QUOTE] Cool…
Yoga is unity…yoga can be part of a religion…including Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc…and very much so. I, as a Christian, I believe in God…a higher power…but I also believe in finding myself…in learning who I am and what my purpose is…in becoming familiar with my mind and body. Religion is not a part of yoga…it has been on this earth before Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc, therefore I see absolutely no push and pull between the two…and in my life they marry beautifully. In fact, I feel that they compliment one another only to help unify my practice. Key work “MY” practice…and no matter who stands on their pedestal and pretends they know this and that…tries to interfere by bringing in the all knowing argument of what is what…Yoga is its own ‘entity’ so to speak. We as humans are too little to comprehend God, just like we are too little to comprehend what yoga really is…
So while we are here on this earth for the short time that is given to us, why argue about something that we do not understand instead of embracing it and spending our precious lives learning…developing…unifying?
The world is too segregated, corrupted and confused…Yoga might be one of the only practices on this earth that brings all sorts of people from all walks of life together. Why ruin that by claiming it as belonging to a specific person, religion, culture or even ethnicity?
I do not like to use words like monopoly and property, these are the wrong words to use. This never was an issue of possesion. Actually the Indic religions don’t have a problem with anyone doing yoga, the problem is within the antagonistic religions themselves. They are the ones who have a problem with yoga. There are two camps in the western religions, one that is trying to stay true to their own scripture and avoids all the doctrines and practices that come with the Indic religions and the other who tries to appropiate all the techniques in order to give their own religion an upgrade. The only thing that matters is that if people want to learn yoga, they should do so with acknowledgement and respect to its origin. In the past few centuries the west has been very receptive to the pragmatism of eastern spiritual techniques, but it is also important to realise that these techniques are part of a larger cultural, religious and historical background. Yoga is much more than a bag of techniques and a little bit of armchair philosophy. Anyone who is serious about yoga should have a very deep appreciation of the Indic traditions, an openness to its teachings, without trying to succumb to blind universalism and extreme reductionism to make it more palatable. If someone wants to practice yoga while remaining a member of their abrahamic religion, they should be respectful to the dichotomies between these paths and concious of the concessions they’ll have to make in either one direction.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72440] Actually the Indic religions don’t have a problem with anyone doing yoga, the problem is within the antagonistic religions themselves. They are the ones who have a problem with yoga…[/QUOTE]
The Ultimate Goal is silence of the mind- the no mind as the Buddhists call it, Chitta Vritti Nirodhah !
As long as whatever practice you follow takes you there - it is Yoga. Yoga after all means Union with the Universal Consciousness & that is the aim of all spiritual practices.
I agree, my stand on the issue is very different now: Yoga belongs to the category of science. In fact the subject matter of Yoga, meditation in order to still and observe the activities of a mind is now a well established area of research in science. We know a lot more now about the physiological conditions and effects of meditation practice now, and have far better technologies and some promising new ones that will enable us to cultivate higher states of mind(the goal of Yoga) more easily and effectively.
The ancients have done a fantastic job in researching the mind and modern science is very indebted to them, but the ancients clearly have not exhausted the area of research here. Modern science is obviously not a religion. So it will borrow freely from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Gnosticism, Sufism in order to draw from a body of knowledge, synthesize it into a scientific format and help that to bring about future advances
The problem I have with Hindus is that they are treating their body of philosophy, science and culture like a religion, what really should belong to science. Hinduism as a religion is a pointless exercise, it will lead us nowhere. There really is no need for its traditions, rituals, mythology in the 21st century. There is no need to preserve any of this - what does need to be drawn from though is the brilliant research they have done in the study of the mind. However, whatever research they have done, is now pretty much exhausted. It is time to advance on that research.
My vision for the future is a world where cultivating higher states of mind is an easy and effortless process. A world where all humans are using 100% of their capacity. An enlightened world where everybody is a Buddha.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72447]
The ancients have done a fantastic job in researching the mind and modern science is very indebted to them, but the ancients clearly have not exhausted the area of research here. Modern science is obviously not a religion. So it will borrow freely from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Gnosticism, Sufism in order to draw from a body of knowledge, synthesize it into a scientific format and help that to bring about future advances
[/QUOTE]
There is no problem with that, they can research as much as they want.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72447]Hinduism as a religion is a pointless exercise, it will lead us nowhere. There really is no need for its traditions, rituals, mythology in the 21st century. There is no need to preserve any of this - what does need to be drawn from though is the brilliant research they have done in the study of the mind. However, whatever research they have done, is now pretty much exhausted. It is time to advance on that research.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree wholeheartedly, but I am not looking for an endless debate, so I am not going to elaborate.
my stand on the issue is very different now
My psychologist friend who also posted on this board has looked at your recent shift in stance and calls this a case of Enantiodromia.
[I]Enantiodromia (Greek: ἐνάντιος, enantios, opposite + δρόμος, dromos, running course) is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.
Though “enantiodromia” was coined by Jung, it is implied in the writings of Heraclitus. In fr. 126, for example, Heraclitus says “cold things warm, warm things cool, wet things dry and parched things get wet.”[1] It also seems implicit in other of his sayings, like “war is father of all, king of all” (fr. 53), “they do not know that the differing/opposed thing agrees with itself; harmony is reflexive (παλίντροπος palintropos, used of a compound bow, or “in reflexive tension”), like the bow and the lyre” (fr. 51). In these passages and others the idea of the coincidence of opposites is clearly articulated in Heraclitus’ characteristic riddling style, as well as the dynamic motion back and forth between the two, generated especially by opposition and conflict.
Later Plato in the Phaedo will articulate the principle clearly: “Everything arises in this way, opposites from their opposites.” (sect. 71a).[2]
Since Jung’s recognition of it many centuries later it has been observed in modern culture. For example, it has been applied to subject of the film The Lives of Others, to show how one devoted to a communist regime breaks through his loyalty and emerges a humanist.
Jung used the term particularly to refer to the unconscious acting against the wishes of the conscious mind. (Aspects of the Masculine, chapter 7, paragraph 294).
Enantiodromia. Literally, "running counter to," referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control. ("Definitions," ibid., par. 709)
Enantiodromia is typically experienced in conjunction with symptoms associated with acute neurosis, and often foreshadows a rebirth of the personality.
The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia, and what good may very possibly lead to evil. ("The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales", Collected Works 9i, par. 397)
The term has also been applied as a neologism to describe the tendency of a younger generation to manifest the undesirable traits of a previous generation, despite the repudiation of these traits when they were young.[citation needed]
Two scientific ideas which appear similar to enantiodromia are Newton’s third law of motion and the Gibbs entropy formula.[/I] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiodromia
Are you sure about that? Clearly the OP was a reaction to all of he nastiness on the part of Hindus that was going on in this forum at the time. Personally I did not like the tone of the OP, but you should not make the mistake of responding to it in kind.
They are the ones who have a problem with yoga. There are two camps in the western religions, one that is trying to stay true to their own scripture and avoids all the doctrines and practices that come with the Indic religions and the other who tries to appropiate all the techniques in order to give their own religion an upgrade.
I think I detect a note of bitterness or anger or annoyance here. I’m not quite sure where that is coming from but I think it’s getting in the way of a clear analysis.
There are certain groups that are antagonistic to yoga. These people will have nothing to do with yoga at all, because they see it as part of a religion that worships gods other than their own. You need to understand that the first commandment of their religion is not to worship other gods, so anything associated with another religion is very scary to them. A lot of these people will not go inside a church of a different Christian sect.
There is another group of people who are a little more open minded. They are willing to employ some of the techniques of yoga, but for them the techniques are strictly divorced from any practice of religion.
Another group may accept the techniques as a spiritual practice but attempt to adapt it to their own religion. The OP falls into this group.
There are those who are more open-minded about the ‘spiritual’ or philosophical beliefs of yoga or eastern religions in general. There any be any number of reasons for their open-mindedness. Some of them are dissatisfied with the things they were taught to believe by their parents or others. Some may try to reconcile or find similarities to their own beliefs, others may whole-heartedly embrace eastern religions and reject Christianity altogether. I don’t think it’s right to say these people are looking for an ‘upgrade’ to their own religion.
You addressed your post to western religions, but there is a large number of people in the west for whom religion isn’t really much of a factor. These people may or may not be open to yoga philosophy or eastern religious beliefs.
The only thing that matters…really? I think just about everyone acknowledges that yoga originated in India, and clearly it does matter to Indian people that people show a little respect for that. The OP was obviously insensitive to this.
In the past few centuries the west has been very receptive to the pragmatism of eastern spiritual techniques,
I think this is an astute observation. In my own experience, it[I] is[/I] the pragmatism of Indian philosophies that I like.
but it is also important to realise that these techniques are part of a larger cultural, religious and historical background.
Why is that important? I think it may be just as important for Indians to realize that the practices and techniques of yoga can be taken completely out of their cultural, historical, and religious background and still be found to be effective. This may be particularly true with respect to religion. I think it’s probably true that even many Indians don’t consider yoga to be a religious practice. Certainly yoga as brought to the west by Iyengar, Jois, and Bikram is not a religious practice.
Are you sure about that? Clearly the OP was a reaction to all of he nastiness on the part of Hindus that was going on in this forum at the time. Personally I did not like the tone of the OP, but you should not make the mistake of responding to it in kind.
This type of possive language around yoga was actually first used in the debate between Deepak Chopra and Aseem Shukla, but in my opinion although I sympethised with Aseem Shukla, he did a poor job of explaining what the real issue was. The problem now is that many people on the Internet are responding to this position of Aseem Shukla, but for most Hindus the issue is not about “taking” anything back which was the title of this campaign of the Hindu American Foundation.
Is it really? Actually I think Philosophy and Practice (techniques) sums it up nicely. Of course we in the west would separate out several different disciplines that are included under the umbrella of philosophy, using the yoga sutras as definitive:
[ol]
[li]Metaphysics[/li][li]Epistemology[/li][li]Psychology[/li][li]Morality[/li][li]Religious belief[/li][li]Belief in occult powers[/li][/ol]
What else is there?
Under religion I would include
[ol]
[li]Belief in a god[/li][li]belief in the doctrines of karma and reincarnation[/li][li]belief in the doctrine of liberation as the highest good[/li][/ol]
Ironically, my biggest beef with the Indian gurus is their tendency to impose their own religious beliefs on the philosophy of Patanjali.
You have given more groups than me, I was only giving a limited example. Of course, it is possible to make a lot of groups based on people’s motivation to do yoga.
[QUOTE=Asuri;72453]
- There is another group of people who are a little more open minded. They are willing to employ some of the techniques of yoga, but for them the techniques are strictly divorced from any practice of religion.
This group practices yoga for some benefit or out of curiosity. There is nothing wrong with this, because there is room for all this things in the yogic traditions depending on the persons constitution. The problem starts when people try to reduce all of yoga and Indian tradition to this type of practice, due to commercialism this has become a very real problem.
Another group may accept the techniques as a spiritual practice but attempt to adapt it to their own religion. The OP falls into this group.
There are those who are more open-minded about the ‘spiritual’ or philosophical beliefs of yoga or eastern religions in general. There any be any number of reasons for their open-mindedness. Some of them are dissatisfied with the things they were taught to believe by their parents or others. Some may try to reconcile or find similarities to their own beliefs, others may whole-heartedly embrace eastern religions and reject Christianity altogether. I don’t think it’s right to say these people are looking for an ‘upgrade’ to their own religion.
It is not a problem if people take a honest look at the similarities and differences of their religion and of yoga, but if done objectively the conclusions will not be blind universalism. In the western yoga community under the influence of neo-Hinduism, people keep chanting that all religions are the same and that every important religious figure was a yogi. This is a problem, because it gives a distorted view of all word religions, their history and doctrines.
- You addressed your post to western religions, but there is a large number of people in the west for whom religion isn’t really much of a factor. These people may or may not be open to yoga philosophy or eastern religious beliefs.
This is indeed a special category, within this group there is a problem category of people who try to distort the teachings of the Indic traditions to suit their modern sceptic leanings. Bhikkhu Boddhi has written a great article reviewing Stephen Batchelor’s book where he discusses some problems with this attitude.http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha106.htm
[QUOTE=Asuri;72457]Is it really? Actually I think Philosophy and Practice (techniques) sums it up nicely. Of course we in the west would separate out several different disciplines that are included under the umbrella of philosophy, using the yoga sutras as definitive:
[/QUOTE]
There are three central beliefs in all of Indian religious doctrines that are not philosophically justified, these are:
1)The belief in reincarnation
2)The belief in karma
3)The belief in final emancipation or liberation
These are central motivations for the undertaking of nivritti marga (the path of liberation) Without these three basic assumptions there can only be question of pavritti marga (the path of wordly engagement).
[QUOTE=Asuri;72455]I think this is an astute observation. In my own experience, it[I] is[/I] the pragmatism of Indian philosophies that I like.
Why is that important? I think it may be just as important for Indians to realize that the practices and techniques of yoga can be taken completely out of their cultural, historical, and religious background and still be found to be effective. This may be particularly true with respect to religion. I think it’s probably true that even many Indians don’t consider yoga to be a religious practice. Certainly yoga as brought to the west by Iyengar, Jois, and Bikram is not a religious practice.[/QUOTE]
The people who have brought yoga to the west have deliberately tried to make these teachings more palatable to a western audience. This results in a distorted view of what yoga is, for people who are serious about yoga it is important to be aware of this development. In the words of Swami Vivekananda:
[I]you should know that religion of the type that obtains in our country
does not go here. You must suit it to the taste of the people. If you ask
[Americans] to become Hindus, they will all give you a wide berth and
hate you, as we do the Christian missionaries. They like some of the
ideas of our Hindu scriptures - that is all …[/I] ~Swami Vivekanda
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72440] Anyone who is serious about yoga should have a very deep appreciation of the Indic traditions, an openness to its teachings, without trying to succumb to blind universalism and extreme reductionism to make it more palatable. If someone wants to practice yoga while remaining a member of their abrahamic religion, they should be respectful to the dichotomies between these paths and concious of the concessions they’ll have to make in either one direction.[/QUOTE]
I’m sure that anyone who is seriously interested in yoga has to understand something about the culture that it came out of, and a willingness to explore the teachings. While people need to be open to the teachings, you can’t demand that we accept them. I think someone who is serious about yoga will take a critical and analytical look at the teachings and make a judgment about what they can and cannot accept. That applies to westerners and Indians alike. I don’t know what you mean by blind universalism and extreme reductionism.
Enantiodromia is typically experienced in conjunction with symptoms associated with acute neurosis, and often foreshadows a rebirth of the personality.
Oh my I didn’t know they considered changing your views/opinions a psychological problem. My views have not radically changed at all. You can review my post history prior to going to India, I was already expressing my discontent with Indian nationalism and fell out with Neitzsche many times over his nationalist attitudes. I had also questioned the status of Hinduism as a religion in the thread, “Is Hinduism a religion” and “Vedic religion” and from the very beginning I have consistently maintained that Yoga is a science. Thus one would not see any abrupt and sudden reversal in my views, but a gradual maturing and evolving view. My current view is hardly a massive reversal. I
You need to know something about me: I have gone through several shifts in my views on life, the world and reality. When I was young I had always been interested in science. The love for knowledge seems to have been there within me from childhood. I was also a believer in god and went to the Sikh temple with my parents. As I grew up, I completely switched to scientism and atheism. I could see no basis for proof of god and religion disillusioned me. I made another shift I went from scientism and atheism to misanthropism and nihilism. This phase carried on for a few years, despite being atheist I had a very strong interest in the paranormal(psychic powers, ufos) and then dabbled in meditation and this bought about my second shift: from atheism to new-ager(crystals, higher self, guides, ascended masters etc). Scentism was replaced by a skepticism of science and atheism with agnosticism. Research into the new-age bought me in deeper contact with Hinduism. It took me a while before I accepted the identity of ‘Hindu’ and this started me third major shift from new-ager to Hindu, maintaining a clean moral life and having an unhealthy interest in Indian nationalism . The fourth shift took place when I started reading Osho and attending Osho meditation sessions, as well exposure to Existentialist philosophy, which started my left-hand path. The fifth and latest shift is giving up the label of ‘Hindu’ and adopting the more universal label of ‘spiritual’ I no longer identify with any kind of nationality or identity. The current shift that is taking place is my move toward the right hand path.
This is not a psychological problem, rather it indicates a very healthy, open, free and flexible mind. I definitely change my views, but I only do it when new evidence becomes available that previous views can longer be maintained. As I am not attached to any of my views, I find it easy to relinquish them. On the other hand, I strongly question Sarva your ability to let go of many of your views, because I don’t think your mind is very healthy, open, free and flexible.
I have been fortunate to be a Hindu my whole life, maybe it is your past unresolved karma that has you going from place to place.
Sarva, I have heard that before from another religious person. My friends at work were Christian and they too found my constantly evolving views and my interest in wider comparitive religion and philosophy to be a problem. They said to me, “We don’t need to explore anything else, we have a solid foundation, there is no need to read anything else or change our views, we are saved” Your attitude is very similar, and you act saved by thinking you are fortunate to be born a “Hindu”(you have good karma) as they were saved because they were Christian.
Over 1 billion people are born Hindu, and about 70% of them are dirt poor. They struggle for basic stuff like adequate food, clean water, opportunities. They live in third world conditions and behave largely uncivilized(pissing and urinating on the street, pushing and shoving, lying) How the hell can this be fortunate?
Obviously a rational person can immediately see that being born Hindu is no privilege and says nothing about how cultivated the person will be. You are living off a borrowed-identity(Hindu) and derive your sense of self worth and entitlement from that. This is a common trait of weak personalities: Nationalists, racists, religionists are largely made up of people like this. They have not achieved anything for themselves, so they leech of the achievements of their wider social group to feel special.
You have not worked for your knowledge. You were born into a belief system. Your knowledge is not authentic or driven by realizations, it is basically made up of borrowed beliefs, and they hardly make any difference to your own spirituality. This is the real difference between spirituality and religion: spirituality is knowledge one realizes within through direct-experience and exploration; religion is adopting a belief system. I thus would venture to say that my understanding of Hinduism is probably a lot more genuine, deeper than yours, simply because I was not born Hindu, I chose it myself through my own personal realizations. I certainly believe this is true going by your posts on this forum. You are close minded, rigid and inflexible in your thinking. This is an unhealthy mind.
I do not consider it at all a misfortune to have gone through so many different shifts in views, because it has helped me understand the world through various different viewpoints and appreciate what motivates a viewpoint and appreciate the validity within that. My shift from viewpoint to viewpoint has been driven by realizations, my knowledge has grown, ripened, matured and evolved over my life. It is therefore my own personal knowledge. I do not leech of another belief system or the achievements of my social group.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72459]There are three central beliefs in all of Indian religious doctrines that are not philosophically justified, these are:
1)The belief in reincarnation
2)The belief in karma
3)The belief in final emancipation or liberation
These are central motivations for the undertaking of nivritti marga (the path of liberation) Without these three basic assumptions there can only be question of pavritti marga (the path of wordly engagement).[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Reincarnation, karma and final emancipation or liberation come from the philosophical system of Samkhya. Samkhya is a system of philosophy which uses perception and reasoning in order to validate all it conclusions.
This is why many people who are not religious(or Hindu for that matter) can accept the concepts of reincarnation, karma and final liberation.
Many scientists today accept reincarnation, and most of them are not Hindu or belong to any religion. They accept it based its existence is validated by research into past life memories etc