Truth about yoga (a article for discussion)

vimoh,

“So when you say what you say, you do not want to convince the other person of your view?”

No, because convincing others will not help. Even if you agree with me - I will make an effort to shatter your agreements. The same is the case if you disagree. Because agreeing or disagreeing will not bring you a step closer to truth. One will have to investigate and experiment.

“You saying your thing is detached and “an expression of your compassion” but your opponent’s is not?”

I was unaware that I had an opponent. If you want to know whether it is out of their own compassion, you should ask them. From what I have seen - it cannot be out of compassion as long as one is only interested in affirming one’s own ideas, beliefs, and conclusions. This means that one is more interested in security rather than Truth. It is my own understanding that more than ninety percent of humanity lives in this way, man is far more interested in comfort and consolation rather than seeing into the Truth. Because with consolation - man can continue preserving the dream that he has created in his own mind. He can continue believing all kinds of things about himself, about the universe, about life, which are just intended to give his ego a sense of support in life. It is a kind of insurance. In case anything goes wrong - these beliefs are there to keep him safe and sound. This is how the average person lives, his interests in life are far more about what assists him in his survival rather than his freedom.

Amir:

That the path of Yoga can be realised only through direct experiment is not the point being debated here. What is being debated here is its linkage with the Hindu way of life as it has existed in India since ages. That is what people here have been trying to say.

You say you have no opponents. But you address people with phrases like “[I]And as you are speaking about something of which you have absolutely no idea, your words about it are completely empty. Unless one has come to a direct perception - then one should simply shut up.[/I]”

How about if we apply the same to you? Have you done enough historical research to be able to affirm or deny the various Hindu/Vedic linkages with Yoga? If yes, then what are they? If no, then will you also shut up?

It seems to me that you have a world-denying view of Yoga and are keen to apply it to the historical view of Yoga. Will you apply the same to all history? Will you say that since the steam engine is pretty much universal now, it is foolish to call it a western invention? Will you say that since anyone anywhere could have the steam engine idea, the scientists who created it and perfected it are chauvinists for claiming it as theirs?

Your distinctions are arbitrary and your conclusions are anything but enlightened. It is a pity that you pretend that your views are free from attachment.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60515]It seems not even a word can come out of your mouth which is not of the borrowed knowledge that is like a vast graveyard in one’s mind. These words are not out of one’s own voice, but other people’s voices have been wandering around in your mind. “Brahman” is just an assumption. You have accepted it on the basis of a belief system, or simply because your traditions have told you. Because you are too afraid to enter into the unknown - without any of these toys to protect oneself with, one needs to cling to a tradition as a support for one’s ego.[/QUOTE]

You attack Sarva’s point by putting yourself on a high pedestal here. Sarva is merely making a case for the historical roots of Yoga. You make it a debate about experience (which you may or may not have and is therefore unverifiable) and dismiss all written accounts as being of no significance. These records, by the way, are verifiable. But you won’t go there since it is too much work, no?

As I said, arbitrary distinctions. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, “I am superior spiritually. I am awesome. I can’t be bothered with books and reading. You are stupid for insisting on history.”

And all this, you say, while continuing to pretend that you are not attached to this debate. Pursuit of the spiritual shouldn’t be had at the cost of one’s worldly dharma. If that had been the case, people would not be expected to marry, and live lives as citizens of their countries. Worldly life comes with its own burdens. India’s classical history is full of accounts of people who let go of their lives to go meditate in the forest. Not because they had delusions of Buddha-hood, but because they did not have the balls to carry out their worldly dharma.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60515]Sarva,

“This is also called vyavaharika satya or the “reality” of the phenomenal world”

And as you are speaking about something of which you have absolutely no idea, your words about it are completely empty. Unless one has come to a direct perception - then one should simply shut up.

It seems not even a word can come out of your mouth which is not of the borrowed knowledge that is like a vast graveyard in one’s mind. These words are not out of one’s own voice, but other people’s voices have been wandering around in your mind[/QUOTE]Here again we see Amir’s meglomaniac tendecies comming above. He has claimed earlier that he has percieved the truth, now he is telling others to shut up if they haven’t. Amir, you cannot win a debate on the premise that you have experienced truth directly. Anyone can say that and it doesn’t negate the historical facts presented.

The methods of yoga are a scientific approach. And part of a scientific approach is experimentation. You will have to experiment, just like the yogis who came to their discoveries were just experimenting. Unless you believe in that nonsense that the Vedas is a revelation from God, then there is no point in inquiring further.
If you are going to claim that yoga is a science, please back it up with academic research to verify this. You can’t, because the subject matter of yoga is beyond science and in the domain of Sanatana Dharma.

[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60525]Amir, you cannot win a debate on the premise that you have experienced truth directly. I, and anyone else here, can claim exactly the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

If you have knowledge of historical facts, then use it to make your case. Otherwise shut up and let those who know say what they have to say.

Your line of reasoning right now is utterly illogical.

To this, you might say that logic, knowledge are all worldly matters and you don’t care about them much since you are beyond them and truth can only be experienced.

If that is the case then what are you doing in a worldly discussion? You have your experience and I have mine. You will admit that they can’t be transmitted. So using them in an intellectual argument is useless.

you spoke your truth. I never meant not to express yourself. My expression here has been because of the assertions here that those who follow Abrahamic religious tradition are necessarily deluded and lost. I do not say anything against Hinduism and do believe yoga is reflected by it. I also believe that yoga can be applied by anyone ascribing any culture. All Abrahamic religions have avenues for the focus of Love to reign. Love is all you need. A few here speak based on a hate ; I am asserting against that. That’s my religion. No one here has anything but admiration for the religion of hinduism. You are defending by attacking and neither is worthwhile. Most likely neither are things written to open your mind and heart to life giving peace. You wrote well though. Namaste

Tonytamer,

You did not debunk any of our arguments. The argument we gave Christianity is an intolerant religion you rebuted by saying your a good Christian, your mum is a good Christian and Father Peter is a good Christian. But we were not saying that Christianity did not have good people who were Christians - we were saying the religion is intolerant. I myself said I have have many good friends who are Christian and I also recognised some rare sects of Christian today which are tolerant. You are not going to get any argument from me that there are good people in Christianity. I agree with that myself. There is no doubt on the matter as far as I concerned.

But when we talk about the Christian religion itself we are not talking about people but doctrines. It is a fact that Christian doctrine preaches intolerance:

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)

“Then Jesus told them, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

“I [Jesus] am the way and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) {1}

"The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.” (Acts 16:29-31)

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Ro 1:18-23)

God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism." (Ro 2:6-10)

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” (Ro 2:13)

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” (Ro 3:22)
Classical Views
For most of its history, Christianity has been an “exclusive” religion. That is, it has taught that salvation is available only to Christians. Thus, from the very beginning, Christians attached great importance to spreading the news about Christianity through missionary and evangelistic efforts, believing that people were lost without it.

In the earliest centuries of the church, the Christian requirements for salvation were very simple. The message was as simple as that given to the prison guards in Acts: Repent and believe in Christ. But as different beliefs about Christ began to emerge, the church began to attempt to determine what was necessary to believe about Christ - that he was raised from the dead on the third day? That he was the Son of God? That he was God incarnate? As correct beliefs were determined, and codified by ecumenical councils of bishops, some of those who considered themselves Christians were regarded by the mainstream church as effectively in the category of “other religions.” (Arius, Pelagius, etc.)

In the 14 centuries between the writing of the New Testament and the Protestant Reformation, Christian doctrine was based on a combination of the Scriptures, creeds, certain councils, the writings of respected church fathers, and the teachings of church leaders. The nearly unanimous consensus of these authorities was that salvation is found exclusively not just through belief in Christ, but through membership in the Church. Thus, it has taught that salvation is available only to members of the Christian community who adhere to the official doctrine of the Bible, the creeds and the councils, and participate in the sacraments. Thus those who considered themselves Christians but were excommunicated from the Church and her sacraments (such as Arius and Pelagius) were believed to be excluded from salvation as well.

The “no salvation outside the church” view was primarily based on the concept, developed by theologians over the centuries, that divine grace is conveyed through the sacraments.

With the Protestant Reformation, many Christians began to believe that salvation is possible - and perhaps even more probable - outside the fold of the Catholic Church. However, it was still generally held that one must be a Christian, and adhere to certain core beliefs, to have hope of heaven.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/other_religions.htm

The Christian intolerance is so extreme that even a website like religioustolerance.com has to expose it:

Of the many thousands of essays on this web site, we regard those in this section to be among the most important.

Almost everywhere else in our essays dealing with Christianity, we compare conservative and liberal Christian points of view. This essay is different. Here, we compare various events in the Bible with current secular and religious standards of morality. This section lists many events in the Bible that are immoral by today’s secular standards, including: genocide, murder of people for their religious beliefs, mass murder of innocent children, etc. They are sometimes called “hard passages” because they seem to portray God as behaving in a way that would be considered highly immoral by most people today.

The purpose and intent of this section is to show there are some profoundly violent, immoral and unethical passages in the Bible when it is compared to today’s secular and religious ethical systems. These passages are casting Christianity and Judaism a bad light. They are causing many potential Christians and Jews to reject the Bible, and may be contributing to the legitimization of violence throughout the culture.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

Religious intolerance among conservative Christians:

A few conservative Christians have made statements that categorize other religious groups as evil, degenerate, sub-human and/or hated by God. Some examples are:

A former Southern Baptist president told two large meetings recently that God does not listen to the prayers of a Jew.
A Baptist minister in Texas has allegedly called for the mass murder of Wiccans by napalm.
An Evangelical minister explained that there are two groups in the world: the children of God (those who are saved), and the children of the devil (everyone else).
Another stated that New Age beliefs are another attempt by Satan to pollute Christianity, promote immorality and foster unethical attitudes.
Still another stated that non-Christians hate God, love sin, and don’t care whether anyone is struggling with sin or not.
A prominent televangelist called for the round up and extermination of all Wiccans by the U.S. Federal government.
Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions have frequently been described as variations of Satanism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol2.htm

It is thus blatantly obvious that Christianity preaches intolerance. According to Christian doctrines I am a heathen satanic worshipper who is condemned to hell and eternal damnation. I am a despicable creature who is hated by god. This doctrine that Christianity teaches has manifestd in history as crusades, colonialism, witch-trials and slavery.

Why are you defending something so morally backwards and reprehensible?

The strength of assertions are reflected in the forum choosed to express them. It is easier to be a Saint surrounded by angels than to maintain holiness in Hell.

Tony you are giving us nothing but rhetoric now.

Why don’t you just admit it Christianity is a primitive and morally backwards religion? How can you deny the blatant fact that Christianity preaches intolerance for all other religions has historically butchered them in cold blood?

I am glad to hear that about the possibility of good Christians. Some curious quotations there, esp. the lead off which could be spoken by any enlightened being. You also get no argument from me that religious institutions can be intolerant. All I believe Jesus said was Love and his example was one of inclusion. Blessed are the peacemakers… I also can’t believe , albeit based on little knowledge, that the Hindu religion as an institution has no intolerance- how about Hindu women ? I have seen some Indian made movies that depict a sad plight politically even today. Any institution is liable to intolerance by it’s nature.

My rhetoric is trying to say you guys are not honest- you are chicken- you crow here but if the strength of your desire to assert against lies were strong you’d go in person to Churches , synogogues and Mosques, This is weak-kneed. Tell me how you exhibit your courage under actual fire. These bullets are cyber soft. Quit pitching a fit in protected place- do it where you can put something on the line that involves courage. Jesus said Love and some understand that . some don’t

All I believe Jesus said was Love and his example was one of inclusion.

Nope, exclusion:

“Then Jesus told them, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

“I [Jesus] am the way and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) {1}

Jesus taught he was the only way, life and the truth and that only accepting him will lead to salvation otherwise one is condemned to eternal damnation. I can read you know? :wink:

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” (Ro 3:22)

I do not have faith in Jesus Christ, according to your bible I have no righteousness from god and god hates me.

Tony:

What Jesus said may be interpreted in many ways and your variety of tolerant Christianity is certainly one way of doing it. But would you say that that is the general perception of Christianity?

> Would most Christians say that Jesus was not the ONE TRUE WAY to salvation?
> Would most Christians agree that idolatry and pagan practices (of the Hindu variety) are okay?
> Would most Christians be okay with a Hindu being a Hindu and not try to convert him or her to their “true” path?

My experience has brought me into contact with many kinds of Christians, but the overpowering sentiment that drives the Church is still the exclusivist one. Just my opinion, based on my experience.

But it is very clear for anyone who can read that it not just a mere interpretation, Christianity the religion, including the bible blatantly says that those who do not accept Jesus are condemned to hell. It blatantly says in the ten commandments accepting any other god than Yaweh or making any kind of image or idol of him is a breach of the ten commandments and is punishable with death.

So if for a Christian it says very blatantly in their bible that idol worshippers and other religions are condemned creatures who god hates and that one of the punishments is death for them, does it surprise at all that in history the Church has directly ordained massacre of pagans?

On Hinduism and tolerance from the same website religioustolerance.com

Hinduism has a deserved reputation of being highly tolerant of other religions. Hindus have a saying: “Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti,” which may be translated: “The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names”

There are no conversion doctrines in Hinduism and history of crusades or inquisitions. In fact Hinduism has been the most tolerant religion on the planet. Why? The answer is obvious it is a more civilised and morally developed religion than Christianity.

Facts are facts.

[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60495]I do not understand, you want us to allow misinformation about yoga to continue so that you can feel more peaceful inside?[/QUOTE]

:lol:

That is the most funniest thing I have read for a long time :lol:

So true as well. So all of us on this forum should not challenge the myths about Yoga and not present the facts, just so that people like Tony can feel at peace HAHA

I was reading Amir’s babbling here again and was tempted to do another Amir buster, but there is no need for it. By now more than half the readers know he speaks nonsense and has delusions of Buddhahood.

His points can simply be boiled down to one argument or rather fallacy: appeal to mysticism. Amir likes to fog everything up with mists of mystery “truth is inexpressible” and “only one can be directly know is the truth” or “this and that is limited” But the irony is, and it is a hilarious irony, he contradicts everything he says in every post, sometimes in the same paragraph! Take one of his latest statements, “Truth cannot be spoken” and vimoh said what I thought when I read that, “Then sir what have you been speaking so far” I was thinking more along the lines of, “Then everything you have been speaking so far is lies then is it?” :smiley:

Amir claims he makes no assumption, has no opinions and only speaks that which is a direct emanation from truth. It comes to his direct experience he says./ But as I showed earlier Amir has made several statements which were false. Note I exposed those statements three times - and three times he did not respond. Why? Because he knows he is a faker(not fakir)

The truth is Vimoh again put it so succiently: he is an arrogant man who thinks he is spiritually superior to everybody else and everything he says is an emanation from truth and the universe. I called it narcissistic personality disorder earlier(look it up online, the symptoms are a near perfect match)

Mystics in general though are walking-talking contadictions. They say things like “Truth is not expressible” but then does that mean whenever they speak they are expressing lies? They say the “self does not exist” then is it OK for me to take away the house they live in, after all there is no possessor to possess it so it cannot be their possession? They say “all is equal and one” does that mean their mouth is equal and one with the anus? :smiley:

Don’t take the mystic argument seriously. How can one take an argument seriously where the arguer themselves contadicts it.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60556]I was reading Amir’s babbling here again and was tempted to do another Amir buster, but there is no need for it.[/QUOTE]

Correct, there is no need for it since one should approach conclusions through direct experience of the highest truth not the belief or blind faith others speak or write.

Surya,

“Amir likes to fog everything up with mists of mystery”

It is not that I like to fog everything with mystery, Truth is a mystery. Even to say that Truth is a mystery is to miss the mark, it appears as a mystery to the intellect, because the intellect cannot grasp it. It is something that is to be realized only through a burning testimony of silence. In that silence, there is nothing mysterious, nothing ordinary, when a Buddha sees into a Buddha, there is no room even for a single thought to stand as a barrier between you and yourself.

“Take one of his latest statements, “Truth cannot be spoken” and vimoh said what I thought when I read that, “Then sir what have you been speaking so far””

All of these words are just a finger pointing to the moon, indicating towards the space.

“Then everything you have been speaking so far is lies then is it?”

Yes.

“But as I showed earlier Amir has made several statements which were false. Note I exposed those statements three times - and three times he did not respond.”

I do not respond to your statements because you are just interested in the game of argument for argument’s sake, nor do I consider you to possess a sincere interest in yoga, nor do I consider you one who is capable of being involved in the work towards one’s awakening. Though you may deny it - but inwardly one knows or does not know very well whether you are truly interested, or just entertaining oneself on an ego-trip.

“The truth is Vimoh again put it so succiently: he is an arrogant man who thinks he is spiritually superior to everybody else”

I do not believe in the very idea of superiority or inferiority, which are just projections of the intellect. On the contrary, it is yourself who believes in these ideas - that Hinduism is superior, that the West is inferior, that a Buddha has to become superhuman and possess miraculous powers which are beyond the capabilities of the ordinary man, that a yogi must become a “God”, and all kinds of things which are just excuses for nourishment of your ego. If everything arises out of one and the same original nature, then where does the question of comparison, of inferiority and superiority arise ? The sun emanates it’s light to everything in it’s path, nourishing both weeds and flowers alike.

If one realizes his Buddha-nature, that does not mean he is superior to anybody. On the contrary, because he recognizes that the same nature pervades all, it brings him into communion with all.

“and everything he says is an emanation from truth and the universe.”

There is nothing which is not a direct expression of truth or the universe. Either you are in wakeful communion with things from moment to moment, or you are sleepwalking, that is the only difference. What I am saying is a direct expression of my own true nature - you may like it or dislike it, it is irrelevant. And that does not make me special, it is just that I have done the necessary work that is needed to come to my present state of being. Because you have not done the work that is needed, you have missed the opportunity.

“Don’t take the mystic argument seriously. How can one take an argument seriously where the arguer themselves contadicts it”

In order to say that which cannot be said, remain absolutely silent. Become as soft as water, and you can overwhelm even the most rigid. To come to know of the highest height, you will have to come to know of the deepest depth. To come to know of your liberation, you will have to come to know of your bondage. Things are, and yet they are not simultaneously. Things are independent and yet interrelated. To come to a kind of resurrection, you will have to die and die completely.

These things all appear as contradictory to the intellect. They have to be. Because those statements which come a bit closer to things as they are have to appear as contradictions - simply because they are not following your one-sided patterns of intellect. Intellect is useful, but dangerous if you do not understand it’s limitations. And this is the basic insight of all of the awakened ones, that a new kind of sense which is beyond your ordinary sense has to become awakened. That is what it means to awaken your “third eye”. It means a totally different way of perception has become available to your which is not of your ordinary perception - a new way of seeing which is not of your ordinary way of seeing.