Suhas,
"This reads as “I won’t come to you, you may come to me”. Fine. Thanks. "
Not certain what you mean.
Again, the use of the word philosophy to describe Patanajli’s Yoga darsana is just a nomenclature that has stuck, much like the word atom(which means indivisible, cannot be split) is a nomenclature that has stuck. In reality atoms can be split and divided further into smaller units, and similarly in reality Yoga is not a philosophy, but a science.
Amir has already pointed out the definition of Yoga is to still the mind(chitta vritti niroddha) using actual methods. It is not a philosophy then, but a set of methods/techniques that are used directly on the mind in order to still it. What is philosophical about this? If one reads Patanjali sutras, nowhere do we find any speculations on reality. It is just a straight report on the various methods of yoga, the structures of the mind that are witnessed during the process of Yoga, tips and strategies, classifications of vrittis, the effects of various stages of meditation and meditations on different objects. It is short a Yogis manual.
The words used in the actual Sanskrit literature itself to describe Yoga is vidya and shastra, both which mean a science. The only reason Yoga gets translated into philosophy in English, is because the West cannot accept Yoga as a science. A lot of this has to do with the Cartesian assumption that the mind is outside of the study of science.
I am, however now starting to insist on the terms the original tradition used now and not the terms the West have translated them into.
Asuri,
"The Swami was a well known, well-respected, and well-loved guru of the Samkhya-Yoga school. "
Whether he is well known, well respected, and well loved, has very little to do with whether one has come to one’s awakening. Not everybody who speaks on the matter is awakened, on the contrary, they are few and far between. To become a swami, it has little to do with your own state of being, but whether you have fulfilled certain qualifications. It is not different than the structure of any priesthood.
And the Swami, speaking on behalf of something like Samkhya, which is a philosophy, he is obligated to work according to it’s structure. The same is the case with those who are speaking on behalf of Vedanta, or Advaita, Buddhism, Zen or anything at all. Even though people like Gautama Buddha, Bodhidharma, Patanjali, Shankara, were speaking from a totally different space. They had come to a certain direct experience, and what they had said with their words and descriptions was just an expression of what they have experienced. The problem is with the disciple, who is more than ready to cling to the words as though it is the reality. And unless you yourself are a Buddha, it is impossible to understand a Buddha.
It is very natural for you to reduce everything as philosophy, that was almost impossible to avoid. Not having come to the experience, one has to cling to borrowed knowledge as a substitute for the Truth.
But [I]you[/I] understand, right?
Like I said, you’re full of shit.
@ SD
I fully expected you would jump on the bandwagon, now that you think you’ve found an ally. The very fact that there are different points of view about the nature of reality confirms that it is philosophy, and not fact. Buddha’s theory on the causes of suffering, for example, are different than Patanjali’s theory of klesas.
I really do not want to argue about whether yoga is a science or not. I think you would have a hard time convincing a physicist or a chemist that yoga is a science. Certainly it contains a methodology based on a particular view of the world. If you want to call it a science, I think maybe you need to examine why that is so. I suspect that it is rooted in a need to establish some kind of credibility for yourself, but you know what? If you weren’t trying to sell something to somebody, you wouldn’t need to establish credibility. Whether you guys realize it or not, you’re still involved in the same old rat race. Why don’t you practice what you preach? If you want to call yoga a science, you had better be able to demonstrate some siddhis. Otherwise you’re just another snake oil salesman.
The very fact that there are different points of view about the nature of reality confirms that it is philosophy, and not fact.
Then by that logic because there are different viewpoints in physics(classical physics, quantum mechanics(dozens of different interpretations), string theory),and different viewpoints in psychology(psychodynamic, social, learning, cognitive, psychiatry) and different viewpoints in sociology(Marxism, functionalism, symbolic interactionism - each of which has several different interpretations) then none of these are sciences.
Certainly it contains a methodology based on a particular view of the world.
Science is a systematic form of knowledge that has been arrived at using a valid method. In empirical sciences, systematic knowledge is arrived at using the empirical methods of measuring and analysing things(such as with microscopes) In social sciences systematic knowledge is arrived at using quantitative and qualitative methods such as observation(participant and non participant) questionaires, interviews, case studies. In logic and mathematics the methods used are formal analytical methods such as propositional calculus, statistical analysis.
In consciousness studies, a subset of transpersonal psychology, mental phenomenological methods are used in order to examine states of consciousness experienced during meditation and their corresponding physical states using EEG’s, MRI scans, skin impedience etc.
Each of the scientific disciplines use a different methodology based on their worldview.
I think you would have a hard time convincing a physicist or a chemist that yoga is a science.
There are in fact physicists and scientists who consider Yoga a proper science. Such as Fritjof Capra. Yoga is a science because it is a systematic body of knowledge that has been arrived at using a valid method. In this case mental phenomenology. A few physicists very familiar with the scientific method, such as Capra, have argued that the practice of Yoga follows the same protocols of the scientific method. There are controls that are applied(fixed posture, regulated breathing and maintaining an object for concentration/focus) and then data is collected which can later be peer reviewed. The stages one passes during meditation can also be systematically studied.
fully expected you would jump on the bandwagon, now that you think you’ve found an ally.
I am a free and critical thinker, and do no conform to anybody for the sake of it. Where I agree with somebody, I will agree, and where I disagree, I will disagree. I do not agree with everything Amir says and Amir knows that. I do not for example agree with his recent statement about Samkhya being philosophy. Samkhya is also a science - but it is a rational science. It uses formal methods of reasoning to come to a systematic body of knowledge.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;48263]Again, the use of the word philosophy to describe Patanajli’s Yoga darsana is just a nomenclature that has stuck, much like the word atom(which means indivisible, cannot be split) is a nomenclature that has stuck. In reality atoms can be split and divided further into smaller units, and similarly in reality Yoga is not a philosophy, but a science.
Amir has already pointed out the definition of Yoga is to still the mind(chitta vritti niroddha) using actual methods. It is not a philosophy then, but a set of methods/techniques that are used directly on the mind in order to still it. What is philosophical about this? If one reads Patanjali sutras, nowhere do we find any speculations on reality. It is just a straight report on the various methods of yoga, the structures of the mind that are witnessed during the process of Yoga, tips and strategies, classifications of vrittis, the effects of various stages of meditation and meditations on different objects. It is short a Yogis manual.
The words used in the actual Sanskrit literature itself to describe Yoga is vidya and shastra, both which mean a science. The only reason Yoga gets translated into philosophy in English, is because the West cannot accept Yoga as a science. A lot of this has to do with the Cartesian assumption that the mind is outside of the study of science.
I am, however now starting to insist on the terms the original tradition used now and not the terms the West have translated them into.[/QUOTE]
Once you study, analyze or practice a set of contributed knowledge, it becomes philosophy.
Even Science requires a merit of belief.
Once you study, analyze or practice a set of contributed knowledge,
Applied science is technology. This is why Samkhya-Yoga is a science and technology.
Continuing the previous post, take electricity for example. There are no differing viewpoints on what it is or how it works. Everybody agrees on what it is and we all use it in pretty much the same way. We understand very well the nature of electricity.
Now for another example, take the word yoga, from the root [I]yuj[/I]. Not everybody agrees on exactly what it means. Some people say it means to join the individual soul with the collective soul or to become one with Brahman. Others say the word means “to yoke”, like you would yoke oxen to a plow in order to accomplish some work. People in that camp might argue that yoga is really more about gaining mastery of the mind, so that we can employ it for our purposes.
So when you say something like, the Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali, you are talking about his particular view of the world, on which his methods are based. But there are many different interpretations of what Patanjali really meant, so unless you can somehow demonstrate reliably that your particular interpretation is correct, you are hard pressed to call yoga a science. In that regard, the teachers who teach the actual methods, asana, pranayama, etc., are much closer to being able to make their case. In the final analysis, just talking about it really proves nothing. On that point, it appears that Amir and I agree.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;48292]Applied science is technology. This is why Samkhya-Yoga is a science and technology.[/QUOTE]
Samkhya simply refers to that which can be measured. That which can be measured can be considered science. Even Applied Science can be considered philosophy in it’s understanding and application.
Actually, it is not agreed upon in physics on what electricity is and how it works. We do not at all understand the nature of what electricity is.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
What is electricity? This question is impossible to answer because the word “Electricity” has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don’t understand electricity, you’re not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time grasping the concept.
Obviously “electricity” cannot be several different things at the same time. Unfortunately we have defined the word Electricity in a crazy way. Because the word “electricity” lacks one distinct meaning, we can never pin down the nature of electricity. In the end we are forced to declare that there’s no such stuff as “electricity” at all! Here’s a quick example to illustrate the problem.
Do generators make electricity? To answer this question, consider the household light bulb. Inside a lamp cord the charges (the electrons) sit in one place and wiggle back and forth. That’s AC or alternating current. At the same time, the waves of electromagnetic field move rapidly forward. This wave-energy does not wiggle, instead it races along the wires as it flows from the distant generators and into the light bulb. OK, now ask yourself this: when “electricity” is flowing, is it called an Electric Current? Yes? If so, then electricity is charge. And therefore we must say that the “electricity” sits inside the wires and vibrates back and forth. Generators do not create it, and it does not flow forward. Next, ask yourself if electricity is a form of energy. If it’s energy, then electricity is made of electromagnetic fields, and it doesn’t wiggle back and forth within the wires. Generators do create it, and it races along the wires at high speed. But electricity cannot do both! Which one is really “the electricity?” Is it the wiggling electrons, or is it the high-speed EM field energy? The experts cannot agree on a single definition. The reference books give conflicting answers, so there is no answer.
In physics there is no agreement on what anything is. Even something as simple as gravity is defined as a force in Newtonian mechanics, a space-time distortion in relativistic mechanics and a quantum energy in string physics and quantum dynamics.
[QUOTE=JSK;48294]Samkhya simply refers to that which can be measured. That which can be measured can be considered science. Even Applied Science can be considered philosophy in it’s understanding and application.[/QUOTE]
No, Samkhya refers to what can be analysed and enumerated to exist. You cannot measure everything that exists with your 5 senses. Hence it uses formal reasoning methods to deduce what exists. It begins with what is seen and measurable and from that infers the unseen.
Applied science is not philosophy. My computer is not a philosophy, it is a technology built on the principles of the applied science of quantum mechanics.
Philosophy is speculation on the nature of reality. There is no method in philosophy. It is just pure speculation. Science, on the other hand is based on an actual method that examines some actual real data and draws conclusions based on that.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;48149]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHggPVMliZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=damaxht6NGQ[/QUOTE]
I’m not impressed and think you suffer from a HUGE EGO. Why else would you record yourself and put it on youtube and then promote yourself on various sites?
In my thread “Should Yoga teachers be Vegetarian?” you invited a lady to have a turkey dinner. Doesn’t show much about your capacity to love. I really don’t get it in this forum? Why are there so many preaching this and preaching that, but being completely cut off from any feeling of compassion or pity for the poor animals. We raise them in factory farms, and we slaughter them by the billions. It’s horrific.
Where is your compassion, AmirMourad?
I’m not impressed and think you suffer from a HUGE EGO. Why else would you record yourself and put it on youtube and then promote yourself on various sites?
There are countless people who record their discourses and publish them on youtube and promote themselves, what is wrong with Amir doing it? He feels he has something to share with the world and he is using that medium.
It is a bit hypocritical of you to criticise Amir, when you yourself promote your negative experiences with your guru and have created a web site to expose him which you promote on varous forums.
Do you also suffer from a huge ego, Elisabeth?
I don’t promote myself as a teacher on youtube like he does.
I’m simply a person with a negative guru experience and through my website I have tried to find other ex-disciples of Swamiji. I am happy to say I already found some European ex-disciples because of my website and I am trying to act as a point of contact for these people, as well as warn people about Swamiji.
About the Ego thing: I’ve been told I’ve got a bit of an ego, :o, but it’s not big enough to put myself up on a pedestal and start preaching. We should leave that to people who actually know enough and “feel” enough. Knowing stuff without having compassion is a waste of time. [B]There is no way I can take anyone serious, or take his intellectual ramblings into consideration if he hasn’t passed the “Compassion” test with High Distinction.[/B]
In order to look deeper into it - one must first distinguish the state of yoga from all of the methods and approaches which are leading towards this. As far as the state is concerned, yoga is itself enlightenment. As far as methods are concerned, there are as many different methods and approaches as one can conceive.
Any method which leads towards one’s awakening is a method of yoga. It does not matter whether you call it “scientific” or not. When I was speaking of “yoga”, I was simply speaking of the kind that is of my own discipline, which has been through meditation.
If you are using your intellect as the means, it is generally called jnana yoga. If you are using your emotion as the means, it is bhakhti yoga. If you are using physical action in the world, it is karma yoga. If you are using meditation, it is Raja Yoga. If you are using the subtle energies which constitute one’s system through bringing certain energy at the base of the spine to the space between the two brain hemispheres, then it is tantra yoga. If you are using the energy of sound vibration as the means, then it is mantra yoga. And you can continue indefinitely, there are as many different approaches as one can conceive, but all eventually converge onto the same point, and the method becomes methodless, the path becomes pathless.
Let it be understood, that yoga is a state of consciousness. What you do to realize this, that is an entirely different matter.
Anybody that feels they are ready to teach, can teach. I have often been told that I should teach, but I simply tell those who say this, I am not ready yet. When I feel ready I will teach.
Amir has had 6 years of spiritual training as an ascetic and he feels he is ready to teach. More power to him. It is something I plan to do as well, but I want to reach a very high level of spiritual cultivation before I start.
By the way I think humility is a weakness. Gods are not humble. If you have something, you have a right to express it. I have exceptional knowledge and intelligence in some areas, and I have a right to express it.
Gods don’t exactly exist either.
God’s are just more realized humans. The process of Yoga is to become a god. This is what the Vedic sages have taught since the beginning - Aham Brahmasmi