Skeptical guidelines to read scriptures

[sqz]

Hi everybody,

I’m new here on the forum, and I’m happy that I found this forum.
Yoga science is very interesting, I like reading/contemplating about it (Especially Yoga sutras / Upanishads).
But, I guess everybody would agree, one should not just believe any text what is interpreted by the reader.
In other words: coloured thought/interpretation should be avoided, as many yogi writers also promote in their scriptures (Sometimes with ‘reading too much scriptures can make you crazy’ etc. hehe).
Modern science call this ‘preventing confirmation bias’ iirc.

However, I was wondering if you people have some guidelines how you approach reading texts. Ofcoarse writingstyles can differ, but anyways here are mine:

Rigid and extreme statements

I assume the writer tries to illustrate a ‘direction’, taking stuff literally could create obstacles.

Compressed complex statements

Upanishads first introduces a lot of terms, to be able to tell the actual story later in short simple sentences using these interrelated terms.
This can become quite complex if you don’t know the terms anymore.
My solution is to draw stuff/relationships, or search for diagrams in google.

I have more…but I have to go now…maybe you have some more as well?

hope all is well

[Surya_Deva]

Welcome to Yogaforums

I think the best way to study the Yoga sutras, Upanishads etc is by the three step method prescribed in the Upanishads itself:

1. Listening
2. Critically analysing, discussing, debating
3. Meditating

We must begin by reading a text purely on its own terms to accurately reproduce the text in our mind and comprehend it. This avoids our own biases, prejudices and assumptions from creeping in. You will be surprised how this deceptively simple step is so overlooked in modern education. The modern method is based on critical reading of a text, so we criticize it and judge it while reading it. What this does is we never accurately reproduce the text in our mind and often misunderstand it.

After we have read it and accurately reproduced it, we must begin to critically examine it. There is a method that the ancient Indian philosophers devised to do this called the pramana theory of epistemology. We must ask, “How do they know, what is the evidence it is based on, is the reasoning solid and sound” In critical reading we are assessing the text through our own prejudices and opinions; but through the Indian pramana method we are using objective indicators to assess the text. Every point the text makes has to be scrutinized by this method.

The final step is to meditate on our findings based on our critical research. That is we must extract the essence of the text and inculcate it so that it becomes realized within us, only then does it really count as knowledge. Prior to that our mind has not yet ascertained its nature and is still in doubt. This is why on the path of Yoga doubt is identified as an obstacle. If you still have doubts when you get to the Yoga stage, then it means you did not properly do your critical research.

[sqz]

Thank you very much for your reply.
I would like, if I may, to go further into your details of your reply.

The modern method is based on critical reading of a text, so we criticize it and judge it while reading it

Thank you for clearing this up.
I can confirm, that usually people read/judge a text on the fly, based on their personal experiences/knowledge from the past.
Its imaginable, this information from the past might be distorted, therefore the judgements made can be distorted as well.

So, to prevent ourselves from judging too quickly, we try to read like this:

We must begin by reading a text purely on its own terms to accurately reproduce the text in our mind and comprehend it. This avoids our own biases, prejudices and assumptions from creeping in.

I can confirm this too. I even noticed this can have a digestion-sideeffect too: sometimes revisiting scriptures can be rewarding, and better understood at a later point in time.

I think both approaches are healthy ones. The ‘on-the-fly’-judging can be efficient in daily work etc: the reader identifies itself with the article. The ‘judgeless’-approach is more reading as an observation, the reader is observing the reading itself.
Thank you for pointing out this spectrum.

Doubt is an interesting topic.
Im just thinking out loud here, but I think, in some perspective, doubt is skepticism in which curiousity is surpressed by fear.
I think doubt on itself will get nobody anywhere…its just blocked energy.
When somebody is skeptical, one is curious to test a claim, which is a good energy imho.
Unfortunately there are many people who incorrectly claim they are skeptics, but many times they dismiss a claim without testing it.
The beautifull thing with yoga is, that many things can be tested and verified by yourself.
Ofcoarse there’s stuff in scriptures, which I havent been able to verify yet, but that also makes it impossible for me to claim the information is incorrect.

Thanks again for your reply, I will look into pramana theory.

[yaram]

Im just thinking out loud here, but I think, in some perspective, doubt is skepticism in which curiousity is surpressed by fear.
I think doubt on itself will get nobody anywhere…its just blocked energy.
When somebody is skeptical, one is curious to test a claim, which is a good energy imho.
Unfortunately there are many people who incorrectly claim they are skeptics, but many times they dismiss a claim without testing it.
The beautifull thing with yoga is, that many things can be tested and verified by yourself.
Ofcoarse there’s stuff in scriptures, which I havent been able to verify yet, but that also makes it impossible for me to claim the information is incorrect.

Thanks again for your reply, I will look into[B] pramana theory.[/B]

In my opinion, many things in Yoga Sutras can not be verified as facts by an individual in his/her own lifetime. May be, one can verify specific benifits of some asanas/prana yama etc. Yoga Sutras are like theory behind the practice. They are much more abstract in nature.
Most of the Hindu scriptures are full of unverifiable stuff. If one gets a doubt while reading those, then one should “assume” them as facts, because they are already “pramanas” (stuff validated by many). However, there are multiple versions of the same scripture, because of multiple viewpoints while translating/updating them.

Modern day “western science” way of accepting stuff as valid and correct is almost same as that of Indian Pramana theory.
However, for “reading” scriptures/Yoga Sutras, as far as I know, nobody had used Pramana theory (If they have used it, they would be struck in the first page itself, forever).

[Surya_Deva]

I think both approaches are healthy ones. The ‘on-the-fly’-judging can be efficient in daily work etc: the reader identifies itself with the article. The ‘judgeless’-approach is more reading as an observation, the reader is observing the reading itself.
Thank you for pointing out this spectrum.

On-the-fly judging is required in our daily life, because we have much lesser time to make judgments, but this is also why we often make so many errors in judgement, because we do not listen with our senses properly. So many petty arguments, violent incidents would be avoided if we could practice mindfullness and remain present to what really is happening. But practically speaking, it is very difficult to practice perfect mindfulness in daily living and it leaves us very vulnerable. Normally, we do things on auto-pilot because if we did them consciously we would stumble. When we become self-conscious for example of out thoughts, behaviour and speech, it can be very debilitating - even holding a conversation can become difficult. My solution to this problem is to practice meditation regularly in order to increase your power of mindfulness in daily life, and become aware of your bad habits and replace them with new good habits.(So you do good things on autopilot!)

Unfortunately there are many people who incorrectly claim they are skeptics, but many times they dismiss a claim without testing it.
The beautifull thing with yoga is, that many things can be tested and verified by yourself.
Ofcoarse there’s stuff in scriptures, which I havent been able to verify yet, but that also makes it impossible for me to claim the information is incorrect.

Absolutely, we had one posting on this forum not so long ago There are many people going around claiming to be skeptics on the internet, and post on forums like JREF, but these are really just cynics and they have no interest in wanting to learn the facts of something they have already dismissed offhand. Our friend for instance, refused to see a video I linked him showing evidence for parapsychology, because he had already decided it was bunk.

The Yoga sutras is not a theoretical text - it is a practical text. This is why you must not have any doubt in it - because doubt will have deleterious effect on your practice. It is an obstacle. If you don’t believe in the goal of Yoga liberation from rebirth and bondage, if you do not believe in siddhis, if you do not believe in reincarnation, then it is going to affect your practice. You will find it very hard to get ahead. As our beliefs limit our potential.

So does Yoga demand blind belief? No, Yoga does not demand any belief at all - the less beliefs you have the better. You must have conviction in the theory and practice of Yoga itself. This conviction will only arise after you have studied and mastered the theoretical part of Yoga - Samkhya theory. By understanding core Yogic concepts which come from Samkhya theory: Purusha, Prakriti, Gunas, Bhutas, Antakarana(manas, buddhi, ahamkara, chitta) Gunas(rajas, sattva, tamas) Bhavas, Karmas etc Then you will understand why you need to practice Yoga. You will have no doubts about siddhis, reincarnation, samadhi etc. It would be like a traveler following a map from the beginning of the journey to the end of the journey.

[Melchizedek]

The Mind remains - OPEN.

The end.

[sqz]

if you do not believe in reincarnation, then it is going to affect your practice

interesting, but would you say it would be okay to have no opinion about it, yet keeping all possibilities open?
I can totally imagine reincarnation happening, but Im not really concerned with what/how/when/where that reincarnation will take place.
Lets say, Im keeping things open…maybe we are talking about the same dunnow
Because when I hear/see the word ‘belief’ (note Im not a native english speaker), usually Im challenged with thinking about people trying to convince others…facts vs beliefs…which even sometimes shifts from one to the other (world is flat->world is round).

Modern Scientists say science is always 99% true…because it’ll always use falsification to improve…therefore science can be both blind belief…and facts hehe…also scientists are preaching ‘their truth’…it is a church in a way…a very cool one.
Modern Science, contrary to what most people think, is quite paradoxical concerning facts/mystery imho, its always changing, and that makes it fun and dynamic.

For example, science discovered ‘gravity’, but are now more or less trying to proof its inner workings with Higgs Boson.

But because our gravityknowledge could already be applied (it was practical knowledge), we didnt seem to be bothered with the fact that we didnt exactly know how gravity was exactly working.
I have the same with yoga asanas or eating, I dont care about evidence, just try it, notice how you feel afterwards, and that is enough for me.

SD: you say something interesting…in the above quote you mention belief (A)…and later you mention that yoga does not require belief (B).
I assume you mean believing as in I say ‘can imagine’ something?
Could you maybe be so kind, to elaborate a bit more on what you mean by belief vs blind belief?
And how to relate belief to the first paragraphs of YS? the correct/incorrect knowledge etc?

[Surya_Deva]

Could you maybe be so kind, to elaborate a bit more on what you mean by belief vs blind belief?
And how to relate belief to the first paragraphs of YS? the correct/incorrect knowledge etc?

Sure pramana is valid knowledge and it is not based on belief. Simply put, it is science and in the philosophy of science we make a distinction between belief and knowledge obtained from the scientific method. Rarely, will you hear a scientist say they believe atoms exist - they know atoms exist, because for many scientists working with atoms is a day to day job - if they did not exist chemistry would not make sense, nuclear fission would not make sense, LHC would not make sense. So it is not the scientist’s belief that the atoms exist, the scientists beliefs are irrelevant, the empirical data itself shows they exist. Although we cannot see atoms directly, we can measure their size, shape, charge, spin indirectly. We can sort of see them with powerful electron microscopes, but as microscopic technology is not that powerful yet, we can only see a vague picture. Similarly, Yoga is based on exactly the same kind of scientific method that scientists use to study atoms, the difference is Yoga studies the quantum not through empirical measurement(that is impossible anyway, the quantum cannot be quantified) but through pure logical analysis and phenomenological analysis. Yoga is just as certain as the scientist is on atoms of the existence of prakriti, purusha, gunas, karama, dharama, prana etc. If they did not exist Yoga would not work.

We could say Yoga is basically a more advanced science than what we have today, but we are gradually getting to a more Yogic like paradigm in our future science, and we are pretty much confirming the existence of all phenomena Yoga posits even today. Why this is possible is because it is knowledge born from pramana i.e., it is valid knowledge. It is distinct from belief which is erroneous and imaginary knowledge. For example “God literally created the world, animals and humans in 7 days” or “Prophet Mohammed is the last, most perfect the final prophet” or “Hanuman flew up to the sun and swallowed it” or “Vishnu has four arms” These are what I call beliefs and less you have of these the better.

[Suhas_Tambe]

SD has studied this a lot. But in my limited view, Indian scriptures are of three types: (1) theory, (2) practice, (3) parables. Usually, theory (like Samkhya karika) is in the form of terse statements, practice (like Hatha Yoga Pradipika) is more principles and indicative; while parables (like Mahabharat) are lucid but subjective and may not take us to the exact destination either in theory or practice.

Since, Yoga Sutra?s central theme is around mind and perception, no wonder Patanjali mentions Pramana as a cognitive method. But it is also important that he says, ?though it delivers correct knowledge, that too ends up creating mind modifications.? Reason is easy to understand. Pramana is the best tool of arriving at the truth, but that remains a ?relative truth? as long as mind is the collaborator in a cognitive process that has elements of memory, ego, emotions and pre-dispositions to collectively color the inference. Being objective is then like trying to stand still in the face of category 5 hurricane.

This leaves us with this course of reading the scriptures:

1. ?First Read? for only understanding the words as they are and their approximate equivalents
2. ?Second Read? for grasping the ?whole idea? of the text, aided by the commentaries, if any
3. ?Third Read? to apply the holistic idea and derive more exact sense from the words and meaning between the lines
4. Then, prepare oneself vis-?-vis the scripture. If there is any fundamental dissonance between one?s deep rooted beliefs and one or more ideas in the scripture, better to let go. Try some other. But, if one finds no hard resistance from within, the next critical read is advised.
5. ?Piece-meal Read? for taking a suitable chunk (a concept/ a section/ a chapter) to read at a time, then to engage with it in the form of practice and/or Pramana inferring; until it is finally rejected, accepted or in-between (unsure).

Indian scriptures would often make assertive statements (?it is thus?) but rarely demand blind faith. Patanjali, for example does not quote any external authority and expects everything to be self-validated and then self-absorbed; implying that he doesn?t want even Sutras to be believed unless it is one?s realized truth.

[sqz]

thnx for these latest posts, im very happy to meet similarminded people on this forum, and also this forumworkflow allows an easier way for receiving pramana (instead of anecdotes during social events or reading books or simple webarticles).
I wish everybody a happy 2013, and hope we will continue to expand our collective mindset.
im now on my iphone, so who knows ill reply on the last posts in greater depth later:

so imho: YS is not a simple text, it requires a fight with all statements, and every fight can be seen as practice. I’ve had many fights with YS, but the good thing is that i have found out practices (reducing mind to singlepointed focus) which let me reproduce certain statements under different circumstances (sitting/in bed/walking/daily life)…and when not (alcohol,too much or less sleep,etc). YS is not a rigid set of abstinences (which would imply a pure falsification system), i see it more as an objective discriminating system without judgments. I hope many people look at YS like this, instead of judging before doing any practice at all.