Is yoga Hindu or Buddhist or a blend

Spirituality Religion
#61

As far as i know, All indian philosophical schools are sufficient in explaining the world in their on ontological stand point. including Carvaka.

If you look one school with other’s point of view all are wrong. Budha had problem with Carvakans, Samkhyan and upanishads. Sankara had problem with all. Ramanuja had problem with Samkara etc.

So if we wanted to see Right and Wrong. All are wrong. But i believe all are right in their point of view. And they explained all phenomena according to their philosophy.

#62

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80910]What’s different?

It is pretty obvious you are trying(very hard) to create a false dichotomy between yoga and Buddhism by exaggerating rather petty and subtle philosophical differences.[/QUOTE]

I have told it in my previous posts in subtle philosophical terms.

Be moral without being made of moral laws(Silava no ca silamayo).

This is buddha’s ethics. What is pragmatic at the moment that is the moral.

Yoga’s ethics: Follow Yama and Niyama.

#63

[QUOTE=chadayan;80890]That is just the justification(logical) and predictability. But still belief in those in my view.

Can we have a self inquiry without a self?[/QUOTE]

An eye does not see itself but it sees everything else, the seeker is the sought.

#64

[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80914]An eye does not see itself but it sees everything else, the seeker is the sought.[/QUOTE]

One cannot see their face, they need a mirror. - Upanishad and Sankara on Mandukya karika bashya

#65

[QUOTE=chadayan;80915]One cannot see their face, they need a mirror. - Upanishad and Sankara on Mandukya karika bashya[/QUOTE]

Wink!

#66

[QUOTE=chadayan;80908]Both Buddhism and Samkhya are ethical, i agree. But the ethic is different.[/QUOTE]

Who is to determine what is ethical and unethical, there are 7,000,000,000 human minds on the planet all with various likes and dislikes pick any subject and you have the possibility of 7,000,000,000 different beliefs in what?s ethical or unethical, everything is perfect nothing is happening that should not be happening, perfection.

#67

[QUOTE=chadayan;80912]As far as i know, All indian philosophical schools are sufficient in explaining the world in their on ontological stand point. including Carvaka.

If you look one school with other’s point of view all are wrong. Budha had problem with Carvakans, Samkhyan and upanishads. Sankara had problem with all. Ramanuja had problem with Samkara etc.

So if we wanted to see Right and Wrong. All are wrong. But i believe all are right in their point of view. And they explained all phenomena according to their philosophy.[/QUOTE]

Nope, I disagree. They are not equally valid. They take a particular pramana to arrive at their ontology. So their ontology is rational, but limited to their vantage point. The Charvaka vantage point is at the lowest - only accepting sense perception as your means of knowing will lead to naive realism and fundamentally wrong views about the nature of reality.

I see it like this going from lowest to highest:

  1. Charvaka
  2. Vaiseshika
  3. Nyaya
  4. Buddhism
  5. Jainism
  6. Samkhya
  7. Yoga
  8. Vedanta

Vedanta is the highest vantage point from absolute reality itself which reals to realization of Brahman. Charvaka is the lowest vantage point purely based on what our senses tell us. And we know it is wrong :wink:

#68

For a non-intellectual non-divisive simple practitioner,

one may be hindu, buddhist, a blend or whatever,

yoga is not.

#69

Often one will see Vedanta referred to as Jnana Yoga.

#70

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80923]Nope, I disagree. They are not equally valid. They take a particular pramana to arrive at their ontology. So their ontology is rational, but limited to their vantage point. The Charvaka vantage point is at the lowest - only accepting sense perception as your means of knowing will lead to naive realism and fundamentally wrong views about the nature of reality.

I see it like this going from lowest to highest:

  1. Charvaka
  2. Vaiseshika
  3. Nyaya
  4. Buddhism
  5. Jainism
  6. Samkhya
  7. Yoga
  8. Vedanta

Vedanta is the highest vantage point from absolute reality itself which reals to realization of Brahman. Charvaka is the lowest vantage point purely based on what our senses tell us. And we know it is wrong ;)[/QUOTE]

you are looking from a Vedanta point of view(ontological stand).And Sankara did the same. If one look from a meterial-scientific stand point your hierarchy will be reverse for them. From a Christian point of view it will be another one. From Islam it will be another.

How can one say, ‘My view is the only reality’? If one say that it is just their point view.

#71

Ray,

If you mean Vedanta is an intellectual process, it may largely depend on interpretation. ‘Jnana’ is more correctly ‘intelligence/knoowledge’ in terms of what results. Intellect is a tool and intellectualization, a process. Ironically, the process of Jnana yoga is ‘neti, neti’ (not this, not this) in effect negating the thoughts and reasoning, the main intellectual instruments, untill they go away and one connects with the soul.

Anyways, my simple statement is a practioner may be buddhist or whatever, yoga itself doesn’t have any such color or identity, if practice is one’s concern alone.

#72

[QUOTE=chadayan;80938]you are looking from a Vedanta point of view(ontological stand).And Sankara did the same. If one look from a meterial-scientific stand point your hierarchy will be reverse for them. From a Christian point of view it will be another one. From Islam it will be another.

How can one say, ‘My view is the only reality’? If one say that it is just their point view.[/QUOTE]

I remember what a famous modern day scientist said, when a student challenged him that scientific knowledge is not reliable, because one day they told you the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it, and the next they told you the Earth is round the Earth goes around the sun. To which he replied: “Yes, they were wrong when they said the Earth is flat and the sun went around the Earth, and they were wrong when they said the Earth is round and the Earth goes around the sun, but if you think they are both equally wrong, then you are more wrong than both of them put together” :wink:

A wider viewpoint includes the previous narrower viewpoint, but the narrower viewpoint does not include the wider viewpoint. Charvaka begins from the ontological standpoint of only what we can see, hear, taste, feel and touch is real. But that is not true, and any scientist will tell you that - we cannot hear, taste, feel and touch gravity, atoms, the quantum field. We need to use inference to establish their existence. From the point of view of perception I am bound to conclude the following facts: The Earth is flat, the sun orbits the Earth, things are solid and static. From the point of view of inference the truth is the Earth is spherical, the Earth orbits the sun, spins on its axis and is hurtling through space at hundreds of thousands of mph, and nothing is solid but at the atomic levels consists of 99% pure space with atoms in violent activity, and at the quantum level there is no matter at all, only the probability of matter, appearing and disappearing every moment.

So returning to my point: Charvaka is the lowest viewpoint one can possibly have and this is why it gives us a fundamentally wrong view about the nature of reality. We have a name for it in philosophical parlance: “Naive realism”

#73

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;80939]Ray,

If you mean Vedanta is an intellectual process, it may largely depend on interpretation. ‘Jnana’ is more correctly ‘intelligence/knoowledge’ in terms of what results. Intellect is a tool and intellectualization, a process. Ironically, the process of Jnana yoga is ‘neti, neti’ (not this, not this) in effect negating the thoughts and reasoning, the main intellectual instruments, untill they go away and one connects with the soul.[/QUOTE]

Considering terminology; ?intellectualization as a process? than yes many use Vedanta as a processes of bringing the mind to a neti, neti state, quite ironic, mindfully and logically intellectualizing this and that until realizing the witness beyond the mind allows a withdraw from the experience and its experiencer in pure awareness. We certainly don?t become mindless instead consciousness shifts, life is lived as it comes, alertly watching and allow everything to happen naturally through unimpeded awareness, the personality continues imagining itself as something (I am this, I am that) but only as a segment of the objective world, its identification with the witness shatters.