Patanjali the scientist, and his teachers?

Spirituality
#1

from an very interesting article on Patanjali:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali:

Although much of the aphorisms in the Yoga Sutra possibly pre-dates Patanjali, it is clear that much is original and it is more than a mere compilation. The clarity and unity he brought to divergent views prevalent till then has inspired a long line of teachers and practitioners up to the present day in which B.K.S. Iyengar is a known defender. With some translators he seems to be a dry and technical propounder of the philosophy, but with others he is an empathic and humorous witty friend and spiritual guide.

When looking at the date of his works, to me it seems clear this was a very clever guy. He stills seems to outclever the majority of the nowadays human population. However, as far as I know his works do not include anything personal.
His writingstyle immediately attracted me (coming from a scientific background), is if it were an instruction manual, stripped from any blabla.

One could assume he was trained by other documentation and teachers, or just simply found out these things all by himself.
The latter would be interesting because that would imply he would have to create his own sanskrit terminology, instead of using existing sanskrit terminology.
Did he just invented the word ‘gunas’ out of the blue?

Anyways, what is clear to me, that in yoga he became the teacher of teachers. Although it would be nice to see it in perspective though.

Has anyone ever found out anything about pre-Patanjali yoga? Any sutras where Patanjali had gotten the mustard?
How deep does this rabbithole go?

#2

No, Patanjali did not find out any of this by himself, Patanjali is not recognized as the inventor of Yoga, but it’s codifier. Each of the 6 Indian scientific systems have a codifier, the role of the codifier is to organize and put into sutra form the information of that system. Patanjali codified the information on Yoga, which prior to him is found in only a scattered form throughout various texts - but we already find all the basic concepts and techniques elsewhere. The theoretical aspect of Yoga, including gunas comes form the philosophy of Samkhya(codified by Kapila) and the practical techniques are mentioned in the Upanishads and the Gita.

#3

Aha! Thank you very much for the feedback.
So Patanjali is a codifier.
Hm interesting, it sounds like an ancient computer programmer who collects data and compresses it, so it can be represented again perfectly at a later point in time.

The theoretical aspect of Yoga, including gunas comes form the philosophy of Samkhya(codified by Kapila)

I think I should definately dive into Samkyha/Kapila-material.
That might put the Upanishads/Yogasutras in the right perspective.

Thanks again.

#4

Hm interesting, it sounds like an ancient computer programmer who collects data and compresses it, so it can be represented again perfectly at a later point in time.

Yes, in fact the word sutra literally means “string” and from it we get out modern word “suture” Etymologically sutra is formed from the verbs su+tra, “su” means compressed and “tra” means instrument, so a sutra literally means a instrument of compressed information i.e., a string of information. This can only be done in Sanskrit, because Sanskrit ironically is a programming language, it’s grammar is pure computer code.

Another interesting feature about the sutras is they are written in meter, they aided the Indian student to memorize each of the sutras. As each sutra contains a lot of information - it was a great way of learning a large subject. All Indian sciences were taught in this sutra way. The teacher would give the elaboration and illustration on the sutras in class.

So when you hear people saying “Patanjali did not mention particular asanas, particular chakras, particular pranayamas etc” that is not because Patanjali did not know those particulars, but because he was compressing the information into general principes and rules for the student to learn. They would have learned the particular stuff inside class.

I think I should definately dive into Samkyha/Kapila-material.

Unfortunately, Kapila’s original sutras have been lost. The earliest surviving text we have is the Samkhakarika by Ishvarkrishna which is a summary of his lost work. Later, in medieval times we have an attempt at reconstruction of Kapila’s work by scholars known as the Samkhya Sutras While, Samkhakarika is the oldest scientific treatment on Samkhya, there are even older texts which describe Samkhya which are worth looking at to get a comprehensive picture. The Svetasvatara Upanishad and Maiterayani Upanishad, plus Ayurvedic classical texts Charaka Samhita and Sushrutha Samhita.

#5

Yes, in fact the word sutra literally means “string” and from it we get out modern word “suture” Etymologically sutra is formed from the verbs su+tra, “su” means compressed and “tra” means instrument, so a sutra literally means a instrument of compressed information i.e., a string of information. This can only be done in Sanskrit, because Sanskrit ironically is a programming language, it’s grammar is pure computer code.

Interesting, I’ve also read in the past that people in those days who understood sanskrit, did not use it perse in daily worksituations, since other simpler languages existed for that (vedic iirc).

So when you hear people saying “Patanjali did not mention particular asanas, particular chakras, particular pranayamas etc” that is not because Patanjali did not know those particulars, but because he was compressing the information into general principes and rules for the student to learn. They would have learned the particular stuff inside class.

Well it kind of makes sense to me.
If you look at scientists, they usually use very [B]compact functional[/B] math/programming languages (to represent complex structures with little code and details), while (web)system programmers use procedural programming language (to represent complex structures [B]excessively in detail for a particular configuration[/B]).
Therefore scientists formulas can survive time much easier than systems made by (web)system programmers (compatibility issues etc).

So, I can understand why the [B]details were left out[/B] in the yoga sutras (asanas/pranayamas), and the [B]general structures/formulas[/B] were promoted instead.
It seems to me, that the writings of Patanjali were written by scientist(s) who are very similar to nowadays scientists.

Thank you for your answer.

#6

Interesting, I’ve also read in the past that people in those days who understood sanskrit, did not use it perse in daily worksituations, since other simpler languages existed for that (vedic iirc).

Yes this is true, Sanskrit was a scientific language only used by scientists, academics and intellectuals. There were common languages spoken by the public like prakrit and tamil.
Vedic Sanskrit is even more complicated and inflected than classical Sanskrit. This really starts to make you question - the further you go back, why does complexity, structure and sophistication increase rather than decrease? If our current theories of the origins of civilization are true it should decrease, not increase. But on the contrary we find in 3000BCE in the Indus Valley civilization, they had a higher standard of urban life than modern day Indians do.

It seems to me, that the writings of Patanjali were written by scientist(s) who are very similar to nowadays scientists.

I have extensively studied India’s ancient history and its history of science, and what has staggered me is virtually everything from a more ancient time period is more advanced and sophisticated than what appears later in India and the world. For example take the medical system Ayurveda, would you believe me if I told you a system of medicine which has been dated to 1000BCE classifies medicine into 8 departments(including pediatrics and surgery) gives a systematic classification of 1200+ diseases, 125 surgical instruments, 300+ surgical operations including very fine eye surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery and brain surgery, and classifies approx 1000 drugs of plant, animal and mineral origin and also gives detailed clinical testing procedures for new drugs? Would you believe me if I told an ancient text on prosody, dated to 200BCE at the latest, and meter classifies 30+ types of meter, classifies short and long syllables using binary code and gives hashing algorithms, as well uses error checking mechanisms to ensure correct transmission of information? That a text on grammar, dated to 500BCE at the latest, anticipates the entire history of modern computer logic and is still considered the most advanced logic in the world, comparable to a turing machine? Would you believe me if I told you the first description of the quantum field and the observer effect is given in what is considered the oldest philosophy in the world? Would you believe me if I told you a physics textbook dated at the latest to 600BCE describes elementary particles, atomic and chemical reactions.

To me it is very clear that Patanjali et al herald from a very advanced scientific civilization in ancient times and that this is going to force us to revise our current ideas about the origin of civilization. As per Indian history, humans have been on this planet for millions of years, and through the cycles of time humans have lost a lot of their previous knowledge. The current age, the age of kaliyuga is the most degraded - our life spans, our science, technology, our intellectual capacity are at their lowest.

#7

By describing Sage Patanjali as a ‘codifier’ akin to a modern-day programmer if we are implying that his contribution was less significant or that he did not and need not belong to the ranks of the same illustrious Yogis who researched and perfected Yoga, we are missing an important point.

Yoga in its advaced stages turns completely into the inner domain. Stages after pratyahara (dharana, dhyana, samadhi and sanyama) cannot be observed externally. Yogis made themselves into a lab and made scientific observations. Their conclusions and the logic can be understood intellectually, but its methodology can never be replicated externally.

Patanjali wouldn’t be so precise in his statements, his masterly logical constructs wouldn’t stand the test of time (hundreds of years) and be true today without an iota of correction, his grasp of the core principles wouldn’t be so clinical that his yoga is not for a nation, a color or a time but for the whole humanity, had he not been a Yoga Master himself in the same league, if not a Master of Masters. Let us not unwittingly or unintentionally imply otherwise.

#8

I certainly do not deny that Patanjali himself had not mastered the science of Yoga. He writes with an authority on the subject which can only come from somebody who has directly validated what they are talking about.

#9

found an interesting link:

http://archive.org/details/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft

@SD interesting, I also read about that binary system, which boggled me because why on earth would somebody in those times felt the urge to document compression/reduction/encryption of numerologics. Anyways, so basically what you say is that all science has always been around, except the field-of-application changes all the time? Like always ever-present correctknowledge-prakrti, in which the gunas shifts between negative,balanced and positive?
Please correct me if you think a prakrti-relationship is not appropriate here.

#10

Yes, this is a rather good book and heavy read on Samkhya. I recommend it :slight_smile:

In fact the times that Pingala, the author of the text on the binary system lived is even older than 200BCE. Indian dates are not accepted by Western scholars because they are too old, so they have revised every Indian date to make it fit Western sensibilities(!) As per Indian scale Pingala lived around 2000BCE during the times of the Indus Valley civilization. So that far back they were creating binary systems - certainly challenges our ideas about origins of civilization doesn’t it? Modern Western scholars suppress any evidence that does not fit with the standard Darwinian evolutionary model. According to them humans living in 2000BCE were primitive stone-working people, not sophisticated scientists creating binary systems and writing computer logic. It’s all one big farce.

I like your interpretation of the ever present knowledge and the field of application changing due to the shifting gunas. Yes, this what Samkhya cosmology tells us as well - time moves in cycles due to the gunas and civilizations rise and fall all the time over vast time cycles of millions of years. We are currently in the Kaliyuga age which began in 3000BCE, roughly the same time the Mayan Calender also begins - Kaliyuga is the shortest period of the yugas(krita, treta, dvarpa) but still lasts 360,000 years. This is the age when human science and technology is at it lowest, lifespan at its lowest, and height at its lowest. So prior to 3000BCE as per this humans would have been a lot more taller, lived longer and smarter than we are today. This is why I think that the further you go back in time the more complexity of language and scientific knowledge increases.

Why do these changes take place? I think it can be explained by the theory of cyclic cataclysm - the coming and going of ice ages, meteorite strikes, climate change, pole shifts and human caused activity. I have very good reason to believe we were more advanced 10,000 years ago than we are today. I very recently learned the ancient Indians also had telescopes and microscopes - slowly but surely a lot of the evidence which has been covered up is starting to creep up from the under the carpet. If people living today were not living in blissful ignorance, we would not allow this cover up to take place. We deserve to know the truth about our origins.

#11

[QUOTE=sqz;81026]found an interesting link:

http://archive.org/details/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft

[/QUOTE]

Many thanks for the link. I immediately downloaded that book and read just the preface. Now, I am very clear and most of my doubts have vanished.

#12

If you look carefully at the yoga sutras, you will find that it contains many definitions of terms, many of which are not found anywhere else. This doesn’t necessarily mean that patanjali invented the terms, but it does give his work a certain level of authority and originality.

The yoga sutras consists of at least three different texts that were combined into one. Patanjali’s original work begins in chapter one and continues uninterrupted until the middle of chapter two. The Asta Anga portion of the text is taken from the upanishads (Jabala Darsana Upanishad I think and maybe another). This is considered to be an insertion into the original text, which resumes again in chapter three. The end of chapter three contains the word [I]iti[/I] - [I]finis[/I], which indicates it was the end of the original text. Chapter four was added later.

The yoga sutras is considered by some to be a samkhya document, and some of Patanjali’s definitions can be found in Samkhya literature, although its difficult to say which came first. The Yoga Sutras is not, however, a codification of pre-existing knowledge from the Upanishads. It is treatise on the philosophy and practice of the yogins, which differs in important respects from the Vedic, Brahminical thinkers.

#13

I have this book in hardback. It’s the most complete work available and the best translation. It is extremely difficult, but if you’re looking for in-depth knowledge, this is the book to have. These are your primary sources. Looking at some of the secondary sources can also help to establish some perspective on the subject.

#14

I point I would like to make seeing as our good friend Asuri with his new handle ino, is up to his old anti-Hindu/Vedic antics, and is spreading the same propoganda that Samkhya is a non-Vedic philosophy and that Yoga Sutras is not composed by Patanjali, but many authors over time. as he did before his exile from the forum. A viewpoint which he shares with Western colonial scholars like Garbe. I think it is my duty to point out that this viewpoint has no basis in facts, but is typical of the kind of racist, colonial, political anti-Vedic/brahmanical philosophy during the colonial period. To understand the context behind this views one needs to understand the politics of it. So I will share a few words on this: The colonial scholars basically created a sectarian and divide and rule politics which tried to manufacture an antagonism between the Brahmin class and the other groups of Indian society(Shudras, Vaishyas etc) as well as between different philosophical traditions like Samkhya, Vedanta, Nyaya. The Brahmins were portrayed using Marxist philosophical reconstructions as oppressors, an evil, regressive class that oppressed every other class and every other philosophical tradition. The Brahmins were somewhat compared to the the tyranny of the Church. The British justified their colonial rule of India by portraying it as liberation from the evil Brahmins. They were very successful in dividing Indians among themselves and to even this date the seeds they sowed has lead to huge sectarian movements in India and domestic terrorism(such as Dravidian separatists, Dalits)

Here are some lies the British colonial scholars sponsored by the colonial government itself created

  1. The Brahmins were not actually originally from India, they were Aryan white invaders from Europe(the racial ancestors of the British) that invaded India in 1500BCE, they brought along with them the Vedas and the language of Sanskrit to India. They subjugated the brown race of India, forced them to accept Sanskrit, forced them out of North India and towards the south, and oppressed them with an evil racist caste system. The Brahmins ruled over India until the British came and ended their oppressive reign
  2. The Brahmanical philosophy was savage, war mongering and barbaric, like other European religions at the time, based on worshiping nature gods and conducting animal and even occasional human sacrifices to the Gods. Due to cultural exchange with the original native people, the Brahmanical philosophy later lead to the Upanishadic period and then the sutra period.

The native tradition of the Indians was called the “Srmana” tradition from which came Buddhism, Jainism and the philosophy of Samkhya and Yoga. By setting up this antagonism the British colonial scholars were able to turn all Indian people against the Brahmins and make Buddhism, Jainism and Samkhya look like an anti-Vedic philosophy. At the same time their new history reconstructed Brahmins as Hindu Church, so future Brahmins believed in the myths that they were the oppressors and their duty was to preserve caste and duties.

Now, what is the actual truth? This racist propoganda history that the British colonial scholars manufactured is not supported by a single shred of evidence, but actually contradicts every fact about Indian history, Indian literature, the traditions of scholarship going for thousands of years and archaeological and genetic scientific evidence. Some lets move to the facts

  1. The Brahmins were far from oppressors considered the sages of India, they were consulted for their wisdom and enlightenment. They had great influence on Indian society, kings, merchants and the common man all went to them to seek their wisdom. While the Brahmins were considered the most respected class and were the most educated, they were also the poorest class. They had no right to own private property or earn living, their duties were as stipulated by state philosophy to teach and conduct priestly duties. They were sustained by the kings through donations.

  2. The Brahmins were the most resistant class of Indians to British colonial rule, they were very resistant to British colonial propoganda, which is why they were the most hated by the British government and the highest number of freedom fighters killed were of Brahmin class.

  3. The Brahmins were the biggest social reformers in Indian society. The Brahmins worked very hard to eradicate social problems like sati(widow burning) untouchability(chandala) and birth-based class discrimination. The British colonialists turned it on its head and made it look like the Brahmins were in fact the source of these problems and took credit for their social upliftment program to make it look like to people they were their liberators and not invaders.

  4. Sanskrit far from a language of savage and barbaric racist invaders, was considered the language of the gods, of learning, of wisdom which in fact means “the perfect language” It enjoyed the same reputation in ancient and medieval India that English enjoys internationally today, it was a language of education, of science, of philosophy, of learning. It was the official language of learning up until the late medieval times when it was replaced by Persian by the invading Mughals, but remained the official language of the native education system. It was then abolished by the British government and replaced with English, deeming Sanskrit to by an inferior language and all its literature literally, “not worth the paper it is printed on”

  5. The entire history of India prior to the colonial British arriving in India and reconstructing it, made absolutely no mention of any Aryan invasion from Europe. Not a single record in India whether Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, whether in Sanskrit, Hindi, Persian, Tamil made any mention of an Aryan invasion of India. Even Buddhist records, who were quite critical of Vedic religion made no claim that the Sanskrit people came from outside of India and subjugated the native people. Strange no, that an entire civilization which is suppose to have been invaded by the ancestors of the British colonialists, has no memory, tradition or record of it - not even the supposed original invaders themselves in the Vedas? :wink:

The absence of any historical record of this invasion the British colonialists scholars invented just made the British turn it around and say “Those Indians never recorded their history, because they were a mythical world-denying people, stagnant and otherwise barbarous, and only made progress when they were invaded by the Caucasian people” In stark contrast to the fact that Indians had recorded extensively the genealogies and dynasties of their kings up to 10,000 years ago and had their own calender, starting their current yuga in 3100BCE during the times of Krishna. Of course this history was dubbed “religious” and ignored.

Yet the biggest irony is modern scientific archaeology has now confirmed there was no Aryan invasion of India and Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly discredited by modern scientists - the only ones holding onto this theory now and unfortunately still in control of writing the history books are the future generations of the racist colonial British scholars i.e., the linguists - and Neo-Nazi groups and Dravidian terrorists.

I leave it to the discretion of the readers then not to take the viewpoint of this member Asuri seriously, a member that has been banned several times for racist and personal attacks.

#15

Ino,

Your comments in very absolute terms are surprising because the scholars still continue to debate many historical facts about Yoga Sutra with no agreement in sight. Your statements also have implied ‘between the lines’ insinuations.

For example, “If you look carefully at the yoga sutras, you will find that it contains many definitions of terms, many of which are not found anywhere else.” suggests that Patanjali’s presentation is not shared/ approved/ in line with the Vedic ‘mainstream thinking’. Then you soften it with some benefit of doubt as “This doesn’t necessarily mean that patanjali invented the terms”; but still want to press your viewpoint as “but it does give his work a certain level of authority and originality.” that certain to be read as ‘questionable’.

Then this is what you say in absolute terms as a historically proven fact: “The yoga sutras consists of at least three different texts that were combined into one.”

Some questions here:

  1. If the ‘three-in-one’ text is so conclusively known dating it shouldn’t be a problem. The scholars are still figuring it out and their “scientific research” puts the date of Yoga Sutra roughly between 400 to 10,000 years in the past!!
  2. “The end of chapter three contains the word iti - finis, which indicates it was the end of the original text.” is a thin argument liked by mostly Western writers. Perhaps they wouldn’t know the word ‘iti’ has two meanings: (1) “that’s all” suggesting an end of the text; (2) “finally/ in the end” and ‘iti’ appearing at the end of the 3rd chapter is natural because the statement is about how the whole process ends in kaivalya.
  3. “Chapter four was added later” is a speculation based on the previous one but does not sound good enough. If in sutra 2, Patanjali defines the objective of Yoga as “sva-roop eva sthanam” (knowing pure consciousness as one’s true state) why someone else needs to add chapter 4 and conclude it with “kaivalyama sva-roop pratishtha” (finally purusha resumes its original state) to say, thus the objective is fulfilled?

Ironically, you are not so sure about the only point that all scholars seem to agree upon that Yoga Sutra is based on Samkhya. You say, “The yoga sutras is considered by some to be a samkhya document, and some of Patanjali’s definitions can be found in Samkhya literature”. Such statements can only be aimed at introducing confusion. It is common knowledge that Yoga Sutra deviate from Samkhya only in two respects: (1) Ishvara, (2) Ultimate non-dualism.

You also add “although its difficult to say which came first.” This comes as a surprise after an emphatic assertion that Yoga Sutra have 3 texts and hence, 3 or more writers.
“The Yoga Sutras is not, however, a codification of pre-existing knowledge from the Upanishads. It is treatise on the philosophy and practice of the yogins, which differs in important respects from the Vedic, Brahminical thinkers.” (Vedic, Brahminical thinking, real and distorted, has been adequately questioned by Surya Deva.)

But your statement leaves behind a scent of denigration of yoga sutra. If that is the intention, we need much better arguments. After all, for millions of practitioners Yoga Sutra remains a masterpiece for its wisdom, the age or authorship notwithstanding.

#16

Readers should take note of how vigorously our Hindu masters fight against anyone who challenges their positions. I tend to gloss over Surya Deva because I consider him to be more of a salesman than scholar, and what he’s selling are his own fantasies. He refuses to acknowledge any fact or evidence that does not support his positions so it’s futile to try to reason with him.

It’s unusual for Suhas Tambe to engage in personal attacks, so it looks like I have touched a nerve here. It’s apparent that there is a lot of negativity circulating that is clouding the understanding. If there is a scent of denigration, it is not toward the Yoga Sutras, which are indeed a master work, but towards simplistic and half-baked statements like ‘the yoga sutras are a codification of knowledge from the upanishads’.

I myself had difficulty accepting that the yoga sutras are not the work of a single author. I have not done the scholarly work of textual analysis that has led to these conclusions, others have. It has only been through years of re-reading and digesting this material that I’ve realized that it’s true. In particular the better I get to know the sutras, the more obvious it seems that the asta anga portion is an insertion into the original text. But I will concede that the argument for the fourth chapter being an addition is not as strong’.

When I said that the Yoga Sutras contains a lot of definitions that are not found anywhere else, that is a direct challenge to the assertion that the sutras are a codification of knowledge from the Upanishads. And when possible precursors of some definitions are found, they aren’t found in the Upanishads, but in the Samkhya literature. These statements were replying to sqz, when he said that if Patanjali had discovered these things himself, he would have had to invent his own terminology. My point is that this[I] is[/I] his own terminology, or more precisely, the terminology of the yogins, and that this terminology is not found in the vedic literature. This reinforces the point that the yoga sutras are not a distillation of knowledge from the Upanishads, but have their origins in a tradition that can be distinguished from the religion of the Brahmans.

If I had stated emphatically that the Yoga Sutras is a Samkhya document, I would have been attacked for that. As a matter of fact, I expected to be attacked for that. It surprises me that I am now being attacked for softening the statement. It’s clear that the intent is to damage my credibility, but the effect is to reinforce the substance of what I said. I’d like to claim reverse psychology but I’m not that good.

You have said that my statements were aimed at introducing confusion. What possible motive would I have for wanting to introduce confusion? What do you mean by introducing confusion? That I have departed from the accepted party line? That I have dared to challenge the masters? I have not introduced confusion, I have introduced the truth.

As for the common knowledge that the Yoga Sutras deviate from Samkhya only with respect to Isvara and ultimate non-dualism, that is a simplistict idea suitable for those who have not investigated the depths and the subtleties of the two systems, and not necessarily true on either count. It would, however tend to support my view that Patanjali’s yoga is not a distillation of knowledge from the Upanishads, since it is more closely aligned with Samkhya than with the vedic religion. And again, if I had stated definitively that the Samkhya literature that contains the definitions I mentioned pre-dates the Yoga Sutras, I would have been attacked for that too. In fact, that is my personal bellief, but I can’t prove it, so I refrain from making that assertion.

Now I know that somebody is going to be upset because I said that Patanjali’s yoga is more closely aligned with Samkhya than with the vedic religion. Then he will go to extreme lengths to show that I don’t know what I’m talking about by pointing out the many references to yoga and various yoga practices in the Upanishads, and that yoga was an integral part of the religion of the Upanishads. There is no denying that the vedic people adopted yoga, but as I said before, [I]Patanjali’s[/I] yoga philosophy differs in important ways from the religious beliefs and practices described in the Upanishads. However, since they are so thoroughly indoctrinated in Vedanta and the belief that nothing can deviate from the Vedas, this is impossible for Hindus to accept. But it is not the product of some evil, racist, western conspiracy against them, it is just that we are not indoctrinated into Vedanta as they are, and it is not a crime if we see things a lirrle differently.

#17

(Perhaps with the above reply the discussion is expected to move away from the substance into personalities. Not interested, thanks.)

#18

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;81136](Perhaps with the above reply the discussion is expected to move away from the substance into personalities. Not interested, thanks.)[/QUOTE]

When [I]party A[/I] writes a post and explains their stand against [I]party B[/I], it is supposed to be [B]“discussing over substance”[/B].
When [I]party B[/I] does the same, it is supposed to be[B] “discussing over personalities”[/B] and hence the hiding.

What a play of double standards and psedo-intellectualism…!!!

That better explains the modern day Brahminical Chauvinism (ranging from birth based to the belief based colors of it).

#19

Yaram,

Come on my friend, you are better than this. You should not fall out with good, responsible and decent members on this forum over a guy that is a proven troll. Asuri has been banned several times from this forum, once for 2 weeks for personal attacks. Another time for 3 months for a very racist attack on a member calling him a “Hindu cow piss drinking dot head” and finally a total and final ban for his vicious and constant campaign of personal attacks against me in almost every thread on the subject of Samkhya. This member is so shameless, despite constantly being banned, he still has had the gall to come back to this forum with his new handle “Ino” and continue the same attacks he was banned for, and this time on our esteemed member Suhas.

Btw Yaram I get the impression you believe in the anti-Brahmanical colonial propoganda. If I recall correctly, we clashed in the past over the Dalit issue. What I don’t understand why would an intelligent member like you fall for his colonial fabricated issue? Surely you would be aware that Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly discredited and it was nothing more than divide and rule politics by the colonial scholars? Why hate your fellow Brahmins?

#20

Although Asuri does not deserve to be given a reply. I thought I would debunk his arguments, because as Suhas said Yogasutras is an important text book for many yogis and when somebody like Asuri comes along and spreads misinformation about it, it cannot be taken lightly lest people get misinformed(Asuri has been spreading deliberate misinformation about Samkhya on this forum for many years. I put a stop to his disinformation campaign and this is why he declared himself as my enemy)

  1. Yogasutras is not composed by Patanjali, but several different authors.

What is his evidence that it composed by several different authors, he doesn’t give any, he just says to the effect of “scholars have said based on textual analysis, therefore they must be right because they are experts” I am sure our intelligent members can see the obvious fallacy here.

Also you need to be careful with Asuri as he misrepresents scholarship all the time to make them say things that he believes, when they have not actually said it. His usual tactic is to pick some scholar with a minority view not accepted by all scholars, and then pass this off as “scholars say this”

There is no evidence at all the Yogasutras has been written by several authors. In fact to causally even suggest this is insulting and legally is grounds for defamation(had he been living today), because it is basically insinuating that Patanjali is a liar and he did not write the Yogasutras, he just put his name to it and it flies in the face of of what the Yoga tradition itself tells us that Patanjali was the codifier(sutradhara) of the Yoga sutras.
Moreover, the Yoga Sutras is not a massive compendium that may require several authors, it a short work consisting of approx 200 aphorisms which follow on from one another in a logical sequence. It does not require several authors to compose.

I will also point out double standards in how some Western scholars approach Indian texts. It is a common tactic used by Western scholars to say an Indian text has had several authors, no matter how short the work is. The claimed authors are all legendary. Yet when they treat of Greek literature, you don’t hear them making these allegations that such and such Greek work is the work of several authors, however big it is. Aristotle’s works like his Metaphysics or Poetics or his work and his work only.

We need to see through this kind of racist scholarship.

  1. Samkhya is anti-Vedic or not a part of the Vedic tradition.

Asuri has probably gone hoarse yelling this on this forum for years, and I have refuted him now several times on this point. It is a well known fact and unanimous fact there are 6 Vedic systems of philosophy; they are Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya, Yoga Mimassa and Vedanta. This fact is known to even the lay person interested in Indian philosophy. You can pick up a dummies guide to Indian philosophy and you will see this.
Therefore, Asuri’s claim that Samkhya is anti-Vedic is utter nonsense, and it really baffles me why he would continue to assert this in defiance of this well known fact that Samkhya is one of the 6 systems of Vedic system.

What Asuri might be saying is Samkhya is at odds with Vedanta Vedanta, is a hermenutical philosophy derived from the Upanishads. Asuri claims Vedanta is the Vedic religion and Samkhya-Yoga is some other religion. How poor his scholarship in Hinduism and Indian philosophy is becomes painfully obvious to anybody with even a basic understanding of Hinduism and Indian philosophy.

Hinduism is meta-religion which describes several different Indian religions that claim to be part of the Vedic tradition. These are numerous and there are complex divisions used to classify it: There is Vaishnavism(Vishnu/Krishna worshippers) Shivaism(Shiva worshipers) Shaktism(Divine mother worshippers) and Smartism(the followers of Advaita Vedanta) These are not totally separate traditions, because they share with one another, this is why it is rare to find a pure Vaishnava or Shivaist Hindu, they tend to worship all forms of deity, but usually have a preferred one(ishta-devata) Now what is common between all these traditions is the philosophy of Samkhya and Yoga, which are interpreted differently by various traditions. Samkhya-Yoga is therefore the very foundation of what defines Hinduism or Vedic tradition.

I will point out Asuri has no credentials at all in either religious studies or Indian philosophy. He is a self-appointed scholar, and has literally been trolling these forums for years spreading misinformation about Samkhya.

  1. Samkhya or Yoga cannot be found in the Upanishads

This is another point that is easily refuted by reading the Upanishads. Yoga and Samkhya ideas that were organized by Patanjali and Kapila respectively are found scatted across the entire corpus of the Upanishads, including in the oldest Upanishads. In particular read the following: Katha Upanishad, Svesthatavara Upanishad and Maitrayani Upanishad where you will find the oldest form of proto-Samkhya-Yoga.

Again I caution readers to exercise great discretion with everything this member Asuri - now known as Ino - says. Asuri is a proven troll and disinformation artist. This man has no character or integrity and though he poses as a scholar, he has no credentials.