Asuri has reported a post.
Reason:
personal attack
Post: 'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology’
Forum: Spirit’s Path
Assigned Moderators: N/A
Posted by: Surya Deva
Original Content:
[QUOTE=Asuri;75205]Not everyone is in agreement. Surya Deva has made the statement that yoga is nothing but a practical psychology/
No, actually Aurobindo has made that statement 
so now he needs to twist the meaning of the yoga sutras in order to make them fit his pre-determined conclusion.
Not twisted anything, clearly presented the material from the YS that deals with psychological content. I have presented direct translations(without interpretations) Pointing out something is not the same as twisting it. Twisting is more like you what you do, taking stuff from the bible and interpreting Samkhya-Yoga into it; like saying Christian doctine talks of the higher self(lol) It is clear who is the twister here
This is exactly the wrong approach, but not unlike many who have gone before him. This is why the true meaning of the yoga sutras is so obscure, because so many people have put their own spin on it, the intent of the original authors is hidden under layer upon layer of dross.
Who said the meaning of the Yoga sutras is obscure? It is pretty clear to me and pretty clear to scholarship. There are several dozen translations of Yoga Sutras in various languages. Nothing obscure about it. Surprising you struggle.
The Samkhya-Yoga literature is very clear. They believed in the multiplicity of purusas. This is one of the central tenets of the philosophy. In denying this and obscuring the meaning, Surya Deva reveals himself to be no different than all of the other charlatans. However Surya Deva can be forgiven because of his hindu background. It has been the practice of hindus to twist samkhya-yoga into vedanta for a very long time. Surya Deva is just continuing the tradition.
Samkha-Yoga are two of the 6 classical Hindu schools of philosophy. So what do you mean by “Hindus are twisting Samkhya-Yoga”? Samkhya-Yoga is a Hindu school of philosophy and has emerged directly from the Vedas lol
I never denied that Samkhya talks about a multiplicity of purushas. In fact one can read any of my posts where I have talked about the basics of Samkhya philsosophy and I mention that one of the tenets is there are a multiplicity of purushas.
However, if you actually read on the scholarship on Samkhya, one of the problems within the philosophy is the multiplicity of purushas. This is for the argument I already stated: There is nothing to distinguish one purusha from the other. For whatever can be used to distinguish one from the other all belongs to prakriti. Thus all purushas have to be identical in nature.
You clearly have not read into the scholarship on Samkhya nor seem to care to(afraid of learning something new? ). You seem to be content on twisting Samkhya to fit your Chrisitan religious beliefs. Thus it is clear to any scholar of Samkhya where you stand. It should be clear to any rational person that you are twisting Samkhya, because Samkhya is not from the Christian tradition, but yet you present it as if it were.[/quote]