the vast literature of Hinduism
Seems to suggest it is COMPLEX (or NON-SIMPLE) wouldn’t you say?
The trouble is that you have analysed Western categorical frameworks according to an Eastern Mindset so you quite simply cannot understand Western culture or have anything meaningful to say on the subject as you are biased.
Now - all that is leftf or us to discuss is what is “Western” and what is “Eastern” in terms of Hinduism and Yoga (remmeber the therad topic) - this should be fun…
I tell you what - I will help you out again to save you some time: “In the sky there is no distinction between East and West” - your theory is weak and has been disproven. Sorry it didn’t work out. Please move on.
[QUOTE=Yogi Mat;57067]@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.[/QUOTE]
I’m not very sure where you got the idea that i hold on to a racial theory?
Vasudaiva kutumbakam is my motto 
I realize that you might not really have a reasonable counter-argument yet so your response was to either change context or to buy more time…
CAtegorical frameworks are a very serious component of phenomenology…got nothing to do with race etc
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
Interesting perspective - so how do you categorise Neuroscience? or Cognitive Psychological Behaviour analysis, psychology? “external” or “internal” enquiry?
How do you categorise meditation on an external object?
How do you categorise God - is (s)he within or without?
Your categorical framework is lame. Move on.
I am not arguing with categorical frameworks - just your implication that one categorical framework is SUPERIOR to another due to a prejudice over ancient literature. Try mereology - it is better suited to discussions about non-phenomenal subject matter such as Hinduism - please keep on topic: IS YOGA HINDUISM?
SD says "YES. PERIOD. MOVE ON YOU RETARDS"
I say. “YES, but with certain PROVISOS, IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE”
PS. Notice I have offered you many more definitions for definitions for yoga, from the Vedas, to English and from Bengali - many contradict each other and so there is no consistency.
You have simply PLUMPED for the one you like the best - fine - but it is not SUPERIOR to any of the others.
You are sounding quite mad - you keep repeating yourself back and forth like a mental patient - all your arguments have shown to be either CONTRADICTORY, INCONSISTENT, BIASED, INACCURATE or MISLEADING.
Last call for SD: PROVE Yoga is Hinduism to ME.
You have proved it to yourself, I do not think your proof is convincing.
Last call - prove it to me (HINT: you will need to use a different method)
If you continue to repreat yourself I will take my leave.
This is your last chance to convert me to your belief system.
[QUOTE=Yogi Mat;57092]I am not arguing with categorical frameworks - just your implication that one categorical framework is SUPERIOR to another due to a prejudice over ancient literature. Try mereology - it is better suited to discussions about non-phenomenal subject matter such as Hinduism - please keep on topic: IS YOGA HINDUISM?
SD says "YES. PERIOD. MOVE ON YOU RETARDS"
I say. “YES, but with certain PROVISOS, IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE”[/QUOTE]
All Dharmic inquiry are phenomenological at one level, especially those that delve into the “Nature” of Reality.
So, yeah, understanding and working with categorical frameworks are absolutely essential. I have never claimed that one categorical framework is superior to another. I have merely observed that there are “Different” frameworks based on cultural differences. You are conflating SD and Nietzsche’s arguments with mine.
@Dwai - Thankyou for your pointing out that your arguments are not the same as SD and Nietzsche’s - well - Nietzsche simply doesn’t have an argument - he simply argues [IGNORE].
SD is a little different in that at least he has researched the original texts - but struggles with context in his analysis.
The reason why I say that the phenomenological aspects are not relevant IN THIS THREAD is because we are talking about “IS YOGA HINDUISM?” not “HOW IS DHARANA DIFFERNT FROM DHYANA?” or “How can I understand yoga?” and all the other questions we might have.
We are looking at HINDUISM
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.
YOGA
The word yoga and its derivatives occur frequently in Sanskrit
literature of all periods as well as in mediaeval and modern
Indian languages. Derived from the verbal root yuj, signifying,
among other things, “to join”, “to attach”, “to harness”,
“to yoke” (an often-cited English cognate), “to unite”, “to
use”, “to employ”, “to apply”, “to concentrate” and “to bestow”,
yoga can mean in Sanskrit “the act of yoking or attaching”,
“a yoke or team”, “sum”, “expedient”, “means”,
“supernatural means”, “magic”, “trick” and many other things,
including “application of mind” and “concentration”. In modern
Indian languages the word has an equally wide range of
meaning. In Bengali, for instance, yoga (pronounced jogo), can
signify “union”, “mixing”, “blending”, “relation”, “contact”,
“expedient”, “medium”, “vehicle”, “auspicious time”, “remedy”,
“food”, “addition”, and “the plus sign”.
In English, where its history goes back to the late eighteenth
century, yoga has just two senses: (1) union with the Divine,
or a system of practice leading to such union; (2) a particular
method of yoga, properly hat.hayoga, that uses bodily postures,
breath control and other techniques to promote good health and
mental tranquillity. The first of these is generally considered the
“real” meaning of the word, and is often mentioned in popular
discussions of yoga philosophy and practice. “Union with the
Divine” falls within the word’s semantic range, but this sense is
not well attested in Sanskrit literature. One of the earliest occurrences
of yoga in a mystical context is in the Taittir?ıya Upanis.ad.
Enumerating the aspects of the knowledge-self (vijn˜a?namaya
?atman), the author says that its body ( ?atman) is yoga (translated
by Hume and Radhakrishnan as “contemplation” and by Olivelle
as “performance”.)1 The Kat.ha Upanis.ad explains that yoga
comes when “the five [sense] knowledges cease along with the
mind, and the intellect does not stir”.
SD still wants this: YOGA = HINDUISM
And I say YOGA = HINDUISM ONLY IF…
So, the main problems here are SETS, (or CATEGORISATION) - ETYMOLOGY, some HISTORY and CLASSICAL LOGIC and SEMANTICS - but not so much phenomenology.
I cannot think of much else that needs to be discussed to reach a conclusion on this subject.
The trouble is that you have analysed Western categorical frameworks according to an Eastern Mindset so you quite simply cannot understand Western culture or have anything meaningful to say on the subject as you are biased.
Nope, because I know both. You can acquire more than one categorical framework and switch between them. I was bought up with a Western education system at school, and at home I got an Indian education through my family, through Indian television and through the Indian community. Later, I chose to immerse myself completely in dharmic culture, so I acquired its categorical framework. Then I decided to study Western philosophy and literature for 3 years and I became immersed in that. To learn the philosophy of a culture is to learn the the concepts which make up that culture and the history of concepts. This fosters understanding.
It also allows me to compare and contrast two categorical frameworks. I do that a lot, and basically my dissertation was a compare and contrast of Western science and dharmic science. I had to study both to a very high level and read all the current academic literature on them.
I have a good understanding of both Western and dharmic culture. I have little to no understanding on African culture, because I have not studied it and immersed myself in it. So I will comment much less on that. Some practices in African culture come across to me as inhuman, but I don’t understand their categorical framework so my understanding and judgement is highly superficial and ignorant. I will thus reserve judgement.
Has anybody won yet?
oh
me.
I did.
Back on the first couple of pages!
Surya Deva, I urge you to cease arguing with Yogi Mat. It is clear that the creature is inferior to us in every respect and is incredibly jealous of our faith, birth, race, intellect and culture. Do not adulterate your abilities by associating with the meanest of the mean.
We have repeatedly proved our position to that thing. It refuses to listen. You and I thought it was ignorant, the most beastly and debased creature on Earth, and thus, tried to teach him. Now, it is clear the abomination has not the intellect to comprehend our arguments, for it repeatedly spouts defensive rhetoric and spams Yoga =/= Hinduism.
It is a mleccha and nothing more (or less). I hope it finds its path sooner or later.
(Wow, acting sanctimonious in order to mock Yogi Mat is fun! I think it should do it more often!)
Interesting perspective - so how do you categorise Neuroscience? or Cognitive Psychological Behaviour analysis, psychology? “external” or “internal” enquiry?
I am sorry if this sounds like an information dump, but it is a very big question, that cannot be answered with a short answer. You need to understand the history of ideas behind it.
Psychology is a very interesting phenomena in Western science. The father of the philosophy of psychology is considered to be Arthur Schropenhauer, who was heavily inspired by dharmic philosophy and championed its cause. His contention was that the noumenon that Kant spoke about was actually desire. That desires within us are the cause that we actually are in bondage and suffering, as long as desire remains, the world remains. Freud was inspired by this idea that there is this storehouse of desires in our unconscious and created psychoanalysis. However, Freud did not adopt the pessimism of Schropenhauer that these desires needed to be eradicated, but rather embraced desires and said that we were a desire producing machine. It is when we oppress the desires producing component(ego) using our social morality(super ego) that we cause psychological conflict. Freud thought that we could have a science of studying the mind and behaviour(i.e., psychology) and the method he used was psychoanalysis and thus highly subjective. However, as the West has a highly empirical and materialist categorical framework, they did not like this idea of a subjective science because they could not measure it. This dogma had been long laid out by Descartes and continues to effect the mind of Western sciende today. Thus arose behaviourism where using empirical research methods they could study human behaviour like the physical sciences. This then evolved into cognitive-behavioural science and then psychiatry and neuroscience. The dominant view in psychology today is the mind and the brain are the same things and the neural correlates of all mental states are being investigated and this research is intimately tied in with cybernetics. The aim is to create conscious AI.
Fortunately, the subjective sciences in the West continued on, though they were not favoured and more often than not, there was an obvious dharmic influence behind it. Husserl the founder of the science of phenomenology in the West(adopted this term from Hegel) was obviously inspired by dharmic philosophy, but did not acknowledge it. He believed we could have a science of consciousness and he adopted the same dharmic stance that reality was created by structures within consciousness. He suggested we must first get rid of all assumptions(bracketing) and observe content of the mind as it is, because consciousness itself was pure i.e., very close to Yoga. However, as Husserl had a Western categorical framework, he said we needed to analyse the contents of the mind and then interpret them(Yoga says do not analyse, just remain a witness of all content) and thus he was not remaining true to his original goal of just sticking with phenomena.
Heidigger, a student of Husserl objected to Husserl to not remaining true to his original project and created his own phenomenology. Again there was a dharmic influence on Husserl, he was heavily inspired by the Kyoto school of philosophy, but again he did not acknowledge his sources. Heidigger said that the structures of consciousness cannot be analysed, because this destroys the nature of beingness or dasein has to be understand existentially and through poetic metaphor. Hence he wrote his treatise, “Being and time” where dasein had to be understood as a historical being evolving in time.
Sartre was heavily inspired by Heidigger, but Sartre’s philosophy moved from phenomenology to existentialism. For him there was no being in time, but rather there was being and nothing(hence his treatise, “Being and nothing”) that there was a being within us that was struggling was clear, but Sarte’s contention was that there was no time per se, because this beingness never could realise its true identity. It could only project possible futures and try to attain them, but never reach realization, because every possibility that it could be could be negated by something else. Thus it was condemned to be free. Various existential philosophers arose after Sartre.
Then Yoga entered Western society in a very big way. There were already Yoga gurus in the West, but the counter-cultural movement faciliated the rise of Yoga in big way. The Yoga gurus pretty much invaded the West during this period. This lead to humanitic psychology, whose foundations were already laid down by existentialism. The human potential movement consisted and influenced by psychologists like Maslow and Carl Jung, who were incredibly familiar with Yoga philosophy and psychology. This later evolved into transpersonal psychology, which is virtually identical to Yoga. It heavily uses Yoga materials and does research on Yoga. Transpersonal psychology is considered by the dominant scientific community to be pseudoscience and quackery. This is because they have a Western categorical framework which considers subjective science to be anti-science.
In short psychology in the West has massive dharmic influences throughout its entire history. The idea that the mind could be studied scientifically has always been against Western science and even today Western scientists deny that it is possible. Yet, in dharmic culture the science of mind and consciousness has been considered the highest science and the most research ever done in this field comes from dharmic science. Even today we cite Patanjali as one of the most best scientists in the field.
By the way do you still think I don’t have a degree in philosophy
By the way my professor of philosophy was dead against the idea of a science of mind or consciousness. He is heavily biassed to Western philosophy, thinks the Greeks are the origin of philosophy and considers every other tradition of philosophy in the world, not philosophy. You see this is his categorical framework. He has not studied any of the dharmic philosophical traditions in any degree of depth. In fact, even when I gave him clear information of a rational tradition in dharmic philosophy - he poo pooed the idea by saying it was a minority tradition and thus not that important. He reserved rationality purely for the West.
Mind in the West has always been the territory of religion. Psychologists are often seen as religious. Freud was even accused of starting a cult 
I agree as well, because any science which aims to bring about inner transformation is very tied with religion. This is why Yoga and religion cannot be separated.
[QUOTE=Yogi Mat;57132]@Dwai - Thankyou for your pointing out that your arguments are not the same as SD and Nietzsche’s - well - Nietzsche simply doesn’t have an argument - he simply argues [IGNORE].
SD is a little different in that at least he has researched the original texts - but struggles with context in his analysis.
The reason why I say that the phenomenological aspects are not relevant IN THIS THREAD is because we are talking about “IS YOGA HINDUISM?” not “HOW IS DHARANA DIFFERNT FROM DHYANA?” or “How can I understand yoga?” and all the other questions we might have.
We are looking at HINDUISM
YOGA
SD still wants this: YOGA = HINDUISM
And I say YOGA = HINDUISM ONLY IF…
So, the main problems here are SETS, (or CATEGORISATION) - ETYMOLOGY, some HISTORY and CLASSICAL LOGIC and SEMANTICS - but not so much phenomenology.
I cannot think of much else that needs to be discussed to reach a conclusion on this subject.[/QUOTE]
Being a native bangla speaker (besides 3 other indian languages and sanskrit) I can say that “Joggo” and “Jog” are two different words and mean different things in bangla.
“Jog” is “Yog” and stands of addition (as in jog, biyog, gun and bhag) as well as the practice of “Yog” (a common term in bangla is “Jog beyam or Yog Vyayam”).
Joggo is Yogya or deservedness…they are two different words and are written and pronounced differently from each other.
As far as the original topic is concerned, the whole point of bringing into the mix the topic of categorical frameworks was to demonstrate that the subject of frameworks is very essential to understanding why Yoga is an integral part of Hinduism and why it is not ethically correct to separate the two, especially in the context of selectively appropriating one (Yoga) while rejecting the other (Hinduism). That’s why while Yoga can and should be used by practitioners of any (or no) religion, it is dishonest to discard the fact that they (Yoga and Hinduism) are inseparably attached.
The word yoga and its derivatives occur frequently in Sanskrit
literature of all periods as well as in mediaeval and modern
Indian languages. Derived from the verbal root yuj, signifying,
among other things, “to join”, “to attach”, “to harness”,
“to yoke” (an often-cited English cognate), “to unite”, “to
use”, “to employ”, “to apply”, “to concentrate” and “to bestow”,
yoga can mean in Sanskrit “the act of yoking or attaching”,
“a yoke or team”, “sum”, “expedient”, “means”,
“supernatural means”, “magic”, “trick” and many other things,
including “application of mind” and “concentration”. In modern
Indian languages the word has an equally wide range of
meaning. In Bengali, for instance, yoga (pronounced jogo), can
signify “union”, “mixing”, “blending”, “relation”, “contact”,
“expedient”, “medium”, “vehicle”, “auspicious time”, “remedy”,
“food”, “addition”, and “the plus sign”.
In English, where its history goes back to the late eighteenth
century, yoga has just two senses: (1) union with the Divine,
or a system of practice leading to such union; (2) a particular
method of yoga, properly hat.hayoga, that uses bodily postures,
breath control and other techniques to promote good health and
mental tranquillity. The first of these is generally considered the
“real” meaning of the word, and is often mentioned in popular
discussions of yoga philosophy and practice. “Union with the
Divine” falls within the word’s semantic range, but this sense is
not well attested in Sanskrit literature. One of the earliest occurrences
of yoga in a mystical context is in the Taittir?ıya Upanis.ad.
Enumerating the aspects of the knowledge-self (vijn˜a?namaya
?atman), the author says that its body ( ?atman) is yoga (translated
by Hume and Radhakrishnan as “contemplation” and by Olivelle
as “performance”.)1 The Kat.ha Upanis.ad explains that yoga
comes when “the five [sense] knowledges cease along with the
mind, and the intellect does not stir”.
The word “Yoga” can mean various things based on their context. We know what context we are using the word Yoga is here we are referring to the system of practices called asana, pranayama and meditation etc. We know we are not referring to the Yoga used in say astrological context to mean auspicious or inauspious times or Yoga used in the context of contact of say samyoga binding in Vaiseshika darshana.
I think it is time I show how absurd your argument is. Every word will have multiple meanings in a dictionary, correct? So how do we know the actual meaning when a word is used? By context. Let us look at a paragraph in one of your posts?
The reason why I say that the phenomenological aspects are not relevant IN THIS THREAD is because we are talking about “IS YOGA HINDUISM?” not “HOW IS DHARANA DIFFERNT FROM DHYANA?” or “How can I understand yoga?” and all the other questions we might have.
From dictionary.com:
Reason:
Phenomenology:
–noun Philosophy .
Aspect:
–noun
Thread:
–noun
Now, I can be a right arse if I want and pretend I did not understand your post because the meanings are diverse for each word. When you said reason did you mean normal or sound powers of mind, or sound judgement, or did you mean a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action? When you said phenomenology did you mean the study of phenomena or the system founded by Husserl stressing the description of phenomena. When you said aspect did you mean the angular distance between two points as seen from the earth, primarily derived by dividing the 360 degrees of the zodiac by the integers 1 through 12, or facial expression; countenance, or did you mean part; feature; phase? When you said thread did you mean fine cord of flax, cotton, or other fibrous material spun out to considerable length, or the helical ridge of a screw, or did you mean a series of newsgroup messages dealing with the same subject?
I think I pretty much destroyed your entire argument The meaning of a word is given by its context. I know exactly what you said and understand what context you used each word in, but if I wanted to be an arse I could pretend I did not know, because each word has multiple meanings. Similarly, you are coming across as an arse by pretending that we don’t know what the word Yoga and Hinduism mean because they have multiple meanings in a dictionary.
Humans are not idiots, we have very sophisticated language abilities. When we read something we automatically can read the context as well. Otherwise, it would be impossible to ever understand one another.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;57183]The word “Yoga” can mean various things based on their context. We know what context we are using the word Yoga is here we are referring to the system of practices called asana, pranayama and meditation etc. We know we are not referring to the Yoga used in say astrological context to mean auspicious or inauspious times or Yoga used in the context of contact of say samyoga binding in Vaiseshika darshana.
I think it is time I show how absurd your argument is. Every word will have multiple meanings in a dictionary, correct? So how do we know the actual meaning when a word is used? By context. Let us look at a paragraph in one of your posts?
From dictionary.com:
Reason:
Phenomenology:
–noun Philosophy .
Aspect:
–noun
Thread:
–noun
Now, I can be a right arse if I want and pretend I did not understand your post because the meanings are diverse for each word. When you said reason did you mean normal or sound powers of mind, or sound judgement, or did you mean a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action? When you said phenomenology did you mean the study of phenomena or the system founded by Husserl stressing the description of phenomena. When you said aspect did you mean the angular distance between two points as seen from the earth, primarily derived by dividing the 360 degrees of the zodiac by the integers 1 through 12, or facial expression; countenance, or did you mean part; feature; phase? When you said thread did you mean fine cord of flax, cotton, or other fibrous material spun out to considerable length, or the helical ridge of a screw, or did you mean a series of newsgroup messages dealing with the same subject?
I think I pretty much destroyed your entire argument The meaning of a word is given by its context. I know exactly what you said and understand what context you used each word in, but if I wanted to be an arse I could pretend I did not know, because each word has multiple meanings. Similarly, you are coming across as an arse by pretending that we don’t know what the word Yoga and Hinduism mean because they have multiple meanings in a dictionary.
Humans are not idiots, we have very sophisticated language abilities. When we read something we automatically can read the context as well. Otherwise, it would be impossible to ever understand one another.[/QUOTE]
SD, shame on you for making Yogi Mat’s arguments sound more intelligent than they actually were!
This is his argument: a rabbit =/= hare or Allah =/= God =/= Yaweh since they have different etymological origins.
Seriously, what the **** kind of argument is that? Its like saying “the Indian film industry and Bollywood are different because the names are different.” Who CARES if the names are different? Everyone knows it refers the same damn thing, end of discussion.
Besides, this isn’t even a situation where you have to worry about etymology.
Yogi Mat really is a fool. “Campaigning for a better representation of Hinduism!” HAHAAHHAAHAH! If people like Yogi Mat brought about a change in our history textbooks, the entire section on Indian history will basically be “we haz nothing fur langhuage iz compluhcatEd.”
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;57167]Surya Deva, I urge you to cease arguing with Yogi Mat. It is clear that the creature is inferior to us in every respect and is incredibly jealous of our faith, birth, race, intellect and culture. Do not adulterate your abilities by associating with the meanest of the mean.
We have repeatedly proved our position to that thing. It refuses to listen. You and I thought it was ignorant, the most beastly and debased creature on Earth, and thus, tried to teach him. Now, it is clear the abomination has not the intellect to comprehend our arguments, for it repeatedly spouts defensive rhetoric and spams Yoga =/= Hinduism.
It is a mleccha and nothing more (or less). I hope it finds its path sooner or later.
(Wow, acting sanctimonious in order to mock Yogi Mat is fun! I think it should do it more often!)[/QUOTE]
Well said.
I did the same thing. I stopped replying to his postings. He is just trying to leverage the whole thread for SY only, so that many links will pop up in Google for SY :). If you question him about anything else, he will bang our head back with Mata ji only. I accepted for his satisfaction that Mata ji was his key to Kundalini awakening, but it was not always true for everyone. He is still not leaving it and at least opening up his mind to discuss anything else.
I ended with a popular quote “Fallacy is truth where ignorance is bliss” and stopped replying or even reacting to his postings. Ironically, in this forum his avatar is not Mata ji, but Ramana Maharishi I think it will be apt if he changes his avatar to Mata ji.
[QUOTE=Sahasrara;57196]Well said.
I did the same thing. I stopped replying to his postings. He is just trying to leverage the whole thread for SY only, so that many links will pop up in Google for SY :). If you question him about anything else, he will bang our head back with Mata ji only. I accepted for his satisfaction that Mata ji was his key to Kundalini awakening, but it was not always true for everyone. He is still not leaving it and at least opening up his mind to discuss anything else.
I ended with a popular quote “Fallacy is truth where ignorance is bliss” and stopped replying or even reacting to his postings. Ironically, in this forum his avatar is not Mata ji, but Ramana Maharishi I think it will be apt if he changes his avatar to Mata ji.[/QUOTE]
Lol thanks. The whole post was one big pile of mockery anyway.
What is SY anyway?
Neitzsche,
I really don’t consider it an argument either, but he keeps repeating it over and over again, so it needed a proper refutation. I recall a philosophical rival student of mine who is a postmodern philosopher. He would constantly tell me how the meaning of everything was ambigious and even denied the truths of logic and mathematics, saying they were all constructed. Postmodernism is all about relativism and ambiguity of truth and especially language and one of the main philosophers championing this thought is Derrida. Derrida’s philosophy and arguments are of course infinitely more sophisticated than what Yogi Mat is putting out here, it is based on how when you study the meaning of any word you go through an infinite regress such as x means y, y means z, z means a, a means b etc. Thus according to Derrida’s philosophy no word actually has an absolute meaning, but in fact meaning is meaningless and decided only by convention. This philosophy is known as deconstructionism. However, the rebutal of Derrida is that if meaning had an infinite regress than it would be impossible to finalize the meaning of any single word, and yet we can. This is because meaning is something intuited by our intuition. Hence why I can read something and automatically read its meaning. It is not a process, but an intuition.
Existential philosophers of mind have also noted that the traditional account of the mind as a processing machine is not true. This is because the mind is not bound by time or space, in the mind I can go to to past or the future, I can project infinite possibilities, I can visualise any place and be there in my mind. If I look in the distance, my mind is already there, even before my body is physically there. Thus the mind does not work like a machine.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;57197]Lol thanks. The whole post was one big pile of mockery anyway.
What is SY anyway?[/QUOTE]
He posted in the wrong thread. He meant to post in the Cult thread in the main Yoga forum.