Is Yoga Hinduism?

[Dwai]

[QUOTE=Yogi Mat;56796]@Dwai:

Sounds great - but what exactly do you mean? - you are not making any sense - don’t make the same mistake SD makes of dumping information for the posters own benefit. It smacks of mental problems - like a patient rocking back and forth in an asylum quietly muttering to themselves.

I am sure you are not like that.

You seem a very intelligent person.

I have explained why I think there is no equivalence previously - this is not a personal issue I have either with SD or Hinduism or yoga - it is just good logic.

Thank you[/QUOTE]

Hmm…Let me explain why their baggage is attuned to dharma. Our cognitive and rational faculties are defined by our Categorical framework. A categorical framework is a structure that one uses to identify and categorize phenomena (all phenomena). At the base biological level, there are certain categorical frameworks shared by members of the same species, based on the sensory perceptions (eg: most humans see, hear, taste, speak the same way; whereas other animals have similar perceptional capabilities within their own species). Then there are social cateogorical frameworks that are juxtaposed upon these basic biological framework that enable us to actually do something with that which we perceive (language, art, science are all part of this). As a dotted line to this complex, we also have certain other “rules” that vary from culture to culture and define the ethics, morality, etc of the members of each of these sub-groups within the homo sapien species.

My statement about “hindus” baggage being attuned to dharma (better attuned should be more appropriate) is in that context. The Westerners have a different categorical framework that colors their world-view. The Dharmic traditions have theirs. Western thought is highly linear, dependent on primarily materialistic rules where are dharmic traditions have a more cyclical nature, based on spiritual rules (that which you would study as buddhism or hinduism etc provide that framework). In that context, the rules of the game for each cultural sub-group is different from the other. So, naturally one who has been brought up within the dharmic sub-group would understand and practice dharma more easily than one who has not.

I think you are very intelligent too…I don’t agree with your position and logic. I think there is an underlying categorical barrier that prevents you from seeing what those whose position you are opposing are saying.

Best Regards

Dwai

[Surya_Deva]

So, naturally one who has been brought up within the dharmic sub-group would understand and practice dharma more easily than one who has not.

Yep, I agree with you. I originally thought it did not matter where you were from Europe, Africa, India, America, were all humans. However, I now realise that it does matter where you are from, like you say we have a different categorical framework. Even though I was born in the UK, I was always attracted more to my own culture. When I discovered Yoga, I found Yoga came very easy to me. I find practicing it quite easy and I get it. I can naturally assume the lotus position as well.

I have strengthened my position now. I think Yoga can only be practiced properly if you are immersed in Hindu culture, and those born in the tradition have a natural advantage. It does not surprise me that the Western yogis we have encountered cannot quite make the shift to dharmic culture and don’t get it.

[Yogi_Mat]

@Dwai @SD - Well this immediately sounde like more spicy hocus pocus - but i will give you the benefiot of the doubt - for the sake of the argument.

This phrase “social categorical framework” is a very interesting concept.

You start off very well - our cognitive faculties being different to other species - very good.

Now then - lets take a look at what you are saying - it is that the society in which we live that provides us with the “social categorical framework”.

So, because we are born into / immersed / live in a particular society or categorical framework we see things differently.

Well, who knew?

This is an observation that we can test.

We start with the NULL hypothesis - you may not know about this Dwai but SD will as he has a first class honours degree in philosophy tucked away ina secret place somewhere where no one can see it.

So the NULL hypothesis is that this “social categorical framework” has no effect on how we view the world.

Can we prove this?

Well, yes we can - both my brother and I have been subjected to the same social conditionng - he is an atheist and I am a Hindu.

So it would appear that th NULL hypothesis is true on at least one count - and I suspect if we were to conducta suvey we would expect more data to support the NULL hypothesis.

This means that your theory is dead in the water - and so are people like SD who desperately try to cling on to the last vestiges of prejudice and discrimination based on creed and racial origin.

Try again.

[Yogi_Mat]

As a side issue - we need look no further than our colleage SD - he was born in the UK and grew up here with very little contact with the social categorical framework of say someone who was brought up and who lived in Bengal and has never been to the UK - and there is no suggestion that either one can be considered “more Hindu” than the other based on your theory.

So, we must find a new theory for this phenomenon of people wanting to claim that they are more HIndu than someone else - and I put forward something than (again) Sd will know all about as he has that first class honours degree in philosophy to back up his argument - it is OCCAMS RAZOR - which says we should actually look for the easiest solution - and we have one already - it is called Wishful thinking.

[Surya_Deva]

I am going to take you off my ignore list because it is an eye sore seeing “This message is hidden because Yogi mat is on your ignore list” and I can see your posts when I am not logged in anyway. I have never been a fan of ignore lists, because 1) You cannot insulate yourself from negative things and 2) It is possible that something interesting and important is said by the person you ignore as well. I am now simply going to use my discrimination on which posts to respond to and which not. I will read all posts though

[Surya_Deva]

Yogi Mat, it appears from a post you made in another thread your biggest issue with me is my view itself, “Yoga is Hinduism” You accuse me of destroying the pluralrism, diversity and complexity of the most diverse religion in the world by defining it. It appears you like diversity, ambiguity, complexity. This is also why you will not accept definitions for words or narratives, because you would rather things be complex. After all, it’s no longer fun when you have a definition of Yoga in your hand, because then there is no room to debate, discuss, analyse. You don’t like it when I give you a single narrative of Indian history, because there is no ambiguity.

I am a far more simple person. I am factual. I need things to be simplified. For me having a definition of Yoga in my hand is a practical matter. It is not a matter of my personal entertainment. So I simply accept the definition the experts give. Problem solved. I move on. Similarly, for me a narrative of Indian history is a practical matter. I look at the facts such as the archeaological finds, and accept the narrative that is most factual. Problem solved. Move on.

I have a problem solving mind. I don’t analyse the problem forever. I assess the problem, find out what the solution is then implement it. Solved. I move on. If the problem is finding a definition of Yoga. Easy, look at several dictionaries and look at the etymology. I do that and I find out Yoga is a Sanskrit word from the root yuj, and is used in the context of the joining of the self with the higher self. It is a Hindu spiritual practice and philosophy. I now have a definition. I move on.

Your mind is different. You analyse the problem forever. You overcomplicate things because you want to study meaning by drawing Ven diagrams and semantic nets, and even after you have done that you still don’t have a solution in your hand You attack others who say they have the solution, telling them they have not analysed it sufficiently, telling them they are simple minded. But the difference between you and the other, the other is practical, as you sit there analysing the problem forever, the other person has already implemented it and invented the wheel and everybody is using the wheel for practical purposes.

I think your mind suffers from the problem of overanalysing. This is why you like complexity. From a dharmic point of view, complexity is not a good thing, simplicity is. Complexity means you have too many things tied up in knots. It will take longer to break the complex thing, than it will take to break simple thing. This is why we dharmic people wrote in sutras, in a single sentence we got our point across and moved on to the next.

Yoga is chit vritti nirodha. What does that mean? It means Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of consciousness i.e., getting rid of complexes of vrittis and restoring consciousness to its simple and pure state. Ironically, the picture of the guru you have Ramana Maharishi, was one of the simplest people that ever lived.

You question whether I have a degree, but why would I lie about something like that? I told you I had a first class hons degree in philosophy with a dissertation in Samkhya, Yoga and science with distinction to reveal my credentials. As you were undermining my knowledge on Hinduism, philosophy, logic and science etc. Why would I lie about having a degree? If I really wanted to lie, I could say I have a Phd or that I am a professional scholar.

Even if I did post my degree is that going to change your opinions on me? You have already adjudged my knowledge on Hinduism, Yoga and India negatively. You have adjudged my debating technique to be high school standard. However, when I asked my judge what their credentials was - you went mute If you are going to go around undermine the knowledge of others and judging them - you need to show your own integrity first. Otherwise, it is best to keep quiet. I will ask you again what are your credentials? Again, I am a simple person, I don’t need to see you post all your certificates and get references from your supervisors and course tutors and overcomplicate such a simple query, I just want your honest words.

There is a big difference between people from dharmic culture and Western culture and this exchange between us is really bringing that out

[Surya_Deva]

A friend of mine who is a Phd and part time lecturer at my local university(Sorry, I cannot get his Phd certificate to prove whether he really has it ) once explained to me the theory of incommensurability in international relations. This theory says that it is impossible to compare one culture to another culture, because they are incommensurable. If you try to see another culture through your own cultural prism you will only get a view of that culture through your own culture and hence a false representation. The only way one can understand another culture is to immerse themselves in it and live it. This plugs into my point that if somebody really wants to practice Yoga they have to immerse themselves into Hinduism and live it. Otherwise, Yoga will be ineffectual for them.

I was bought up in the UK, but I was born as a Sikh in an Indian family. I was exposed to dharmic culture from the very start and was bought up with it. I was exposed to their spiritual values. I did not socialise too much outside of the Indian community initially, and thus I got a very high dosage of Indian culture and hence dharmic culture. I grew up watching the Mahabharata, Ramayana and hearing stories about risis, moksha and from a very young age this captured my attention(I also grew up with Bollywood :D) Later on in life, I expanded outside of the Sikh sub-dharma culture and embraced the wider dharma culture of Hinduism.

I immersed myself in Hinduism first by getting a copy of the Vedas from my local Arya Samaji temple and reading them and studying them deeply, then reading Vedic magazines. I have always had a love for the Vedas(probably a past life thing) and tried reading all translations I could get my hands on. I then moved onto reading other scriptures Brahma Sutras, Yoga Sutras, Vaiseshika Sutras, Nyaya sutras, Samhya sutras and Samkhya Karika which pretty much became my philosophical backbone. I was reading eveything I could get my hands on. I loved the dharmic literature.

Then after reading the primary texts, I moved onto reading the literature by Hindu gurus: Swami Vivekananda, Swami Yogananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Krishananda, Aurobindo etc etc In terms of understanding of the knowledge portion of dharma culture I had reached a very high level, but it was the practice portion that I was lacking on. This motivated me to seek dharmic groups locally, or the closest to dharma I could find: The Brahmakumaris, Anandamarga Yoga, Satyananda Yoga which taught me the practice of asana, pranayama, mantra chanting and meditation.

I decided I wanted to dedicate my life to dharma and didn’t know where to begin. I knew it was mostly philosophy that appealed to my mind, so I decided I would study a degree in philosophy and maybe this will open up avenues. I realised that we did not study any Indian philosophy, so I made it a point to study it extensively myself, include Indian philosophy in all my essays and even do my dissertation on Indian philosophy. I excelled in my degree and dissertation, had a reputation for being amongst the most brightest students and now I am in a position to continue onto a Phd and become a full-time Indian philosopher. But I realised something recently, which was fermenting in my subconscious for a while - knowledge is no longer satisfying me. Every book I pick up on philosophy I already know. So what is the point doing a PhD when I already know the answers. I have more or less mastered philosophy, thanks to my immersion in Hinduism. This is why I am probably the finest Jnana Yogi in the population, and definitely on this forum I get Hinduism/Yoga, like nobody I meet gets it.

The very basic issues Western yogis struggle with for me are childs play. Why, because I am immersed in dharmic culture. But Western Yogis could reach the same level I am at if they too immerse themselves in dharmic culture. But what is preventing them from doing that is their cultural arrogance. They want to remain a part of the social categorical framework they were born in - and still practice Yoga. As a result they end up working with a Yoga that is a false representation of the real thing. Thus they never can appreciate Yoga in its entireity, have huge gaps in their knowledge, and a faulty practice which leads to faulty character.

[Surya_Deva]

By the way I want to clarify if there is any doubt that I am not saying all Western yogis are phonies. I know there are some Western yogis that are truly excellent, such as Swami Kriyananda, but they have immersed themselves in Hindu culture and been doing sadhana for decades.

[Dwai]

[QUOTE=Yogi Mat;56852]@Dwai @SD - Well this immediately sounde like more spicy hocus pocus - but i will give you the benefiot of the doubt - for the sake of the argument.

This phrase “social categorical framework” is a very interesting concept.

You start off very well - our cognitive faculties being different to other species - very good.

Now then - lets take a look at what you are saying - it is that the society in which we live that provides us with the “social categorical framework”.

So, because we are born into / immersed / live in a particular society or categorical framework we see things differently.

Well, who knew?

This is an observation that we can test.

We start with the NULL hypothesis - you may not know about this Dwai but SD will as he has a first class honours degree in philosophy tucked away ina secret place somewhere where no one can see it.

So the NULL hypothesis is that this “social categorical framework” has no effect on how we view the world.

Can we prove this?

Well, yes we can - both my brother and I have been subjected to the same social conditionng - he is an atheist and I am a Hindu.

So it would appear that th NULL hypothesis is true on at least one count - and I suspect if we were to conducta suvey we would expect more data to support the NULL hypothesis.

This means that your theory is dead in the water - and so are people like SD who desperately try to cling on to the last vestiges of prejudice and discrimination based on creed and racial origin.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately for you, the very fact that you apply the “null hypothesis” shows that you are using that theory to color your world view. Try as we may, there is no escaping and no denying the “rules” that color our methods of knowledge acquisition and provide the rules of interpretation and analysis.

I will give you an example of medicine, which is sort of the perfect case study of this disparity in categorical frameworks. Western medicine, traditional indian medicine (ayurveda etc) and chinese medicine have completely different “rules” of diagnosis, different modalities of treatment and the systems themselves are based on totally different theories. At times the treatment methods are in total opposition to one another, yet each system “works”, the ramifications of each are different.

One growing up in the west seldom has a choice to use the non-western systems ( things are getting better these days), however in india or china the tradtitional systems are either more popular or are regaining their popularity. Why? Because these systems are congruent with the basic philosophical framework of each culture.

So you are what we call an Abcd who was born and raised in the west. You will naturally have a western framework and you cannot escape it. Because no matter what you have been taught at home, your formative education was shaped by your society nonetheless. Your methods on inquiry and interpretation are sort of hardwired in your brain and they have to follow the popular framework where you re born and raised. Can you overcome these?sure, but it will take effort and a systematic deprogramming of your intellect in order to do that. The problem is that this framework is so subliminally ingrained in your brain, you can’t even recognize it ( for the most part). Albeit I wold contend that a westerner who belongs to a different cultural origin (eg, indian or chinese) would at least have had the opportunity to have picked up on some of the alternate frameworks provided his/her family cultivated this from an early age.

So the lack of difference you see between your brother the atheist and yourself the hindu is because you both still share your primary cultural conditioning. The choice to become an atheist or a hindu was one made far beyond your formative years…

[Surya_Deva]

One growing up in the west seldom has a choice to use the non-western systems ( things are getting better these days), however in india or china the tradtitional systems are either more popular or are regaining their popularity.

However, mere usage and exposure is not enough. They need, as you say the social categorical framework to understand non-western System which arose in that social categorical framework, otherwise they just end up moulding it to their own social categorical framework and thus destroying it. Is it not safe to say that Yoga has been destroyed in the West. It has become nothing more than a physical and commercial culture.
Yet, Western yogis claim this physical and commercial culture as spirituality and say how much they have become calmer and balanced, and yet it only takes a Yoga forum to break their calm and balance

Both myself and Neitzsche have noted how little Yoga has done for Western yogis on this forum. The yama of satya for example is speaking truth always, and yet you are hard pressed to find honesty - people who face facts. The proof of this is this thread alone where the facts can be faced that Yoga is Hinduism and in the the threads discussing Abrahamic religion, where the facts of history cannot be faced on what they did.

Satya for me is the most important yama. That is because you face to face reality as it is. Am I saying this just because I have been programmed with a dharmic categorical framework?

[Dwai]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;56948]However, mere usage and exposure is not enough. They need, as you say the social categorical framework to understand non-western System which arose in that social categorical framework, otherwise they just end up moulding it to their own social categorical framework and thus destroying it. Is it not safe to say that Yoga has been destroyed in the West. It has become nothing more than a physical and commercial culture.
Yet, Western yogis claim this physical and commercial culture as spirituality and say how much they have become calmer and balanced, and yet it only takes a Yoga forum to break their calm and balance

Both myself and Neitzsche have noted how little Yoga has done for Western yogis on this forum. The yama of satya for example is speaking truth always, and yet you are hard pressed to find honesty - people who face facts. The proof of this is this thread alone where the facts can be faced that Yoga is Hinduism and in the the threads discussing Abrahamic religion, where the facts of history cannot be faced on what they did.

Satya for me is the most important yama. That is because you face to face reality as it is. Am I saying this just because I have been programmed with a dharmic categorical framework?[/QUOTE]

sd,

in my conversations with western converts to some hindu tradition (mostly the hare krishna types) i noticed a tendency to replace one dogma with another. the pluralis m of hindu dharma is llost to most…they simply replace my x is better than your y to my w is better than your y.

one very pointed and heatded discussion with a luminary of the iskcon group was revelatory for me. when i raised the point that dharma is not merely theology but also tradition, culture, his response was that the culture, tradition part was partly superstition, partly due to lack of intelligence on part of the indian masses. so western hinduism was based purely on scripture sans the culture and tradition.

i obviously disagree, because one cannot understand the subtle nuances of dharma without the supporting ecosystem that the cultural and traditional part of the narrative provides. one without the other is hollow…

that said, i feel that the introduction of yoga in the west is actually a good thing. imho since the dharma is relatively infantile in the west, it should be given a chance to evolve. that however does’nt mean that western “yogis” should concoct just about any interpretation just to make it more marketable. i think every religion can and should leverage yoga, but that should be based on the premise that all religions refer to the same truth in different words. once people accept that, there will no longer be a need to appropriate yoga and oother dharmic systems

[Yogi_Mat]

@Dwai Hopefully, I do not need to highlight your claim that the NULL HYPOTHESIS is (somehow) racially biased in favour of some mystical western mindset you want to complain about is VERY FUNNY. I am actually laughing about that. Is suggest you withdraw it pretty to quick. Listen I make mistakes too, I am not beyond reproach - but what makes me different to people like SD is that if I see I have made a mistake I will apologise, adjust my position and move on as friends. SD up until now has shown little appetite for such a charitable approach and continues to persist with the idea that SENIORITY=SUPERIORITY. It does amuse me for a while and then I get tired of it and move on because you can only hear the same joke a few times before it becomes tedious.

[Yogi_Mat]

your biggest issue with me is my view itself, “Yoga is Hinduism” You accuse me of destroying the pluralrism, diversity and complexity of the most diverse religion in the world

Yes - this is what I am saying.

BECAUSE there are SO MANY definitions I am afraid that your idea that I somehow “LIKE” “diversity, ambiguity, complexity” is rather weak.

THIS IS THE FACT - both are diverse, ambiguous and complex - this is where I agree with you in that they share those attributes - but it does NOT make them EQUIVALENT.

Your view is too simplistic.

Let me explain with another non-controversial analogy - FIRE - I will not discuss the etymology as you have shown your disdain previously for looking at the origin of the words “Hinduism” and “Yoga” (which itself is a VERY STRONG refutation of your claim.

Anyway, we cannot agree on a single definition for “FIRE” - we could say “That which burns” or “that which is hot” or “that which gives smoke” but all are LAME.

So, what can we say about fire?

We can DESCRIBE IT.

Now, this description is not dependent on this fanciful notion of @Dwai that somehow someone from Jamaica will see a fire differently to someone from Finland.

The words they use will almost certainly be different though - but this is a notional difference - they are both describing FIRE.

Now, I say that the description of fire is many and varied, but just becuase our description is not understood by someone from another part of the world does not mean that the description is INFERIOR.

Your “LOGICAL/ FACTUAL / EMPIRICAL” argument:-

1. There is smoke on the hill
2. There must be a fire
3. We need to find out who started the fire
4. Indians started the fire
5. Indians showed other Indians how to start fires
6. Non-Indians have started fires but they were not shown by an Indian so it is not really a TRUE fire
7. Unless your fire is Indian it is not really a PURE fire - it is just a load of old hot flames, ash and smoke
8. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist

Hinduism and Yoga ARE NOT SIMPLE as you want them to be.

The world is not flat no matter how many times you say it is.

Sorry to spoil your fun - but I do not see how you can wriggle out of such a lame piece of “philosophy” - it is really som,ething I would expect froma secondary school student - they MIGHT det ORDINARY GRADE “D” for submitting such an argument - more liklley though they would be sent to the headmaster.

So, all your “authentic” study seems to have led you knowhere - just like these “western” students you attack.

Youa re obviously a simple person - fine - but please notice how philosophy is not your forte - and your arguments to convince someone like me is TOTALLY UNCONVINCING.

You CHERRY PICK facts and are STUCK - you cannot move on because of your pride.

So - may I suggest THERAPY?

[Surya_Deva]

The Null hypothesis is indeed part of the Western categorical framework. This is easy to prove because you will not find it in any other culture. It is part of the Western scientific method and has evolved out of the Western empirical tradition. Most of the original empiricist philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke came from England. Most anglo saxon philosophy is empiricst and analytical aka as analytical philosophy. Even in individual Western countries we find a slightly different, though compatible categorical frameworks. Americans have a pragmatical tradition of philosophy. In America, truth is anything that meets a pragmatic end and is conveniant. In the Romantic countries like France, there is a more of a postmodern and political tradition of philosophy, and this is the tradition that there is no truth, but all truth is just a socio-linguistic construction and related strongly with political power aka continental philosophy.

Now when you go Eastwards the categorical framework becomes polar opposite, that it is no longer compatible with the Western categorical framework. The dharmic categorical framework is consciousness or observer based. All dharmic philosophy is based on observation/direct experience. In the Western categorical framework this is considered subjective and no importance is given to it. Dharmic science is descriptive, and there is no formalism. I explained this to Neitzsche as well, who considers Western science superior because it is formal(I am not sure if he holds onto such views anymore) but the knowledge in dharmic science is identical to the knowledge in Western science. We have equivalent terms for every modern scientific term. In cybernetics for example the programmed self is called an executive program. In dharmic philosophy we call the self ahamkara, the constructer/programmer of a sense, based on programming of thoughts. The ahamkara is said to be nothing more than an aggregate of thoughts. In quantum mechanics the reality that precedes the particle is called quantum which is not localised in time and space. In dharmic philosophy we call it Akasha, a field which is not localized in time and space and from which all particles arise.

Our scientific method is meditation, the Western scientific method is empirical investigation of the outer world. This is why to find out what is true in the West you are told to go investigate it using empirical research methods, measure it, and produce statistics and then to represent it mathematically. In the dharmic scientific method, to find out truth, we are told to go meditate on it. To produce a direct and real experience of it. Then to verbally express it.

Therefore null hypothesis method is indeed not part of our categorical framework and you cannot force it on us, because it simply does not fit in our categorical framework. Our methods are far superior. While you will only get measurements of the effects of atoms and produce theoretical models of what atoms look like - we can directly experience them, see them dance into and out of existence and go beyond them and see the quantum and the other levels of reality. Even Western philosophers of science admit that the Western scietific method cannot give us any truth beyond what can be measured.

[Yogi_Mat]

For a more convincing analysis of Hinduism, Indian Nationalism and Yoga I would try this: Indian Nationalism, Pluralism and Sri Aurobindo by Richard Carlson

For better and SIMPLER Indian Logic than your OVERLY COMPLEX MASHUP SD I would go here: Theory of inference - sorry that it is only Wikipedia - but I have since lost all interest in helping you from my own sources - mainly because you have called me a “retard” and accused me of being racist - which (funnily enough) makes me mistrust your intentions in this forum. Who’d have thought calling someone a retard and racist would have an any affect on the relationship?

I am pleased that I could be of some assistance, and I thank you for your participation in the discussion - but if there is no other comment or question for me I will take my leave and wish you good luck with your continued studies.

[Yogi_Mat]

SO SD: why do you insist on using “Western” facts and empiricism in your arguments for Hindu supremacy?

Isn’t that a bit SELF-DEFEATING?

Your idea that Eastern “categorical framework” is OBSERVER based and the Western is NOT is REALLY REALLY FUNNY.

Have you any idea the lengths scientistst go to toi ensure etheir observations are accurate?

THIS IS FIVE STAR ENTERTAINMENT !!

KEEP IT UP - YOU ARE MAKING MY DAY HERE !!

[Yogi_Mat]

Hmm, you seem to want to put yourself forward as a spokesperson for some vague, homecooked SD Hindu nationalism - not the real Indian Nationalism that I know.

You are misrepresenting the cause - and now I know why - you want to make the Hinduvta cause seem radical and thereby put people off !!

Sorry - my mistake - it has taken me a couple of days to finally realise what you are doing here.

By making Hindus out to be radical puritans you are actually making the cause less tenable.

NOTE: In a judgment the Supreme Court of India ruled that “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage.”

The Court also ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind.”

And THIS is what you object to - by radicalising the argument (by going to extremes) you are undermining the movement.

Well, it hasn’t worked - I am still here and I am still arguing for the authentic traditions - you have been white-washed by living in the UK for too long and not practicing.

HAHA - you have been FOUND OUT

[Surya_Deva]

Nope, I explained that Western science is based on observation of what is outside, examining it, measuring it etc Whereas Dharmic science is based on direct experience of something. In fact I will clarify further there are two traditions, though complimentary in dharmic science. There is pure meditation, whereby any truth is discovered purely through meditating on it. And there is a pure rational method, whereby truth is discovered first by observing simple empirical facts(e.g., something falling) and then using reasoning to establish truth(e.g., gravity) However, taking measurements, formalizing it by representing it mathematically via equations or statistics and fitting it into a hypothesis is exclusive to the Western scientific tradition.

why do you insist on using “Western” facts and empiricism in your arguments for Hindu supremacy?

Facts are facts, no matter what culture they come from. I use Western facts to show that they are discovering the same knowledge that we Hindus discovered thousands of years ago. The only thing is they are doing it a lot slower than we did, and their method is faulty and prone to error, and considered invalid by us. We have superior methods: pure reasoning and meditation.

[Surya_Deva]

Yes - this is what I am saying.

BECAUSE there are SO MANY definitions I am afraid that your idea that I somehow “LIKE” “diversity, ambiguity, complexity” is rather weak.

I have already demonstrated we know what Yoga is. I produced about 10 definitions from various Yoga sources and official dictionaries, that all agreed pretty much on the definition: Yoga is an Indian/Hindu spiritual practice where one attempts to join the higher self with the lower self, join the mind body and achieive enlightenment/liberation etc

Similarly, we know what Hinduism is.

You can continue to remain ignorant and pretend we don’t know because the meaning is complex, ambigious, diverse, but then we will just call you a fool.

[Surya_Deva]

Now, I say that the description of fire is many and varied, but just becuase our description is not understood by someone from another part of the world does not mean that the description is INFERIOR.

Nope, dear. We are not saying that different cultures will see fire differently. Of course they will all see the same fire because they constituted biologically the same. But how they will interpret that fire and how they will utilize that fire is a different matter. Ask yourself, why did some cultures invent the steam engine and some didn’t. Why did some cultures invent Yoga and some didn’t? Why did some cultures invent the zero and some didn’t?

Inventions, techniques, technologies and philosophies are specific to a particular categorical framework. We see Yoga is ours, because we invented it, it came from our categorical framework. To understand Yoga therefore you need to understand our categorical framework by understanding our culture. Just as I would have to look at Western culture to understand the scientific method. Fortunately, I have. I understand the Western scientific method by looking at the history of Western culture and philosophy and reading the academic literature and have deconstructed it in my dissertation.

Similarly, you have no hope of understanding Yoga without looking at the history of Hindu culture and philosophy and reading the vast literature of Hinduism.