Leave dogma and faith behind-believe in openess and clarity as the neutral science of yoga invites ; live life in the now that encompasses past and future. Most of all, let go of pride that sets you and what you see as intrinsically your own apart. Love your brother as you love yourself for the love of God. We are arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Saturnalia was December 25th and Rome was more of a pattern maker than Persia for Roman Catholics probably. Besides, we have a huge inheritance from Indian culture , I gratefully acknowledge, I have always been drawn to it’s beauty . There is Beauty all over the world and good people everywhere. A sincere heart that loves selflessly is closer to God than all the words of the Bible or the Vedas. I try only to reject hate in myself and accept it in others as twisted love. I was about to say I don’t waste my time rejecting Christianity but I do waste my time on this as my words mean nothing to you. You are a cup that’s full. Isn’t the sanskrit for religion yana meaning vehicle ? My car is a Honda Accord, it gets me where I want to go as long as I take care of it. Namaste
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;59734]All of the things which the Theory of Relativity is talking about - do they have their roots in science or do they have their roots in existence itself ? If gravity has its roots in science, then if our scientific knowledge disappears, gravity will disappear. But that is not the case, even if there is not a single human being to organize scientific knowledge, gravity exists.[/QUOTE]
You obviously didn’t understand a word I posted. Re-read it and see.
[QUOTE=TonyTamer;59792]Saturnalia was December 25th and Rome was more of a pattern maker than Persia for Roman Catholics probably.[/QUOTE]
Saturnalia was from December 17th to December 23rd. The Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was on December 25th. “Sol Invictus” was the Latin name of Mithras/Mitra, and means “Unconquerable Sun.” Mithraism was an extremely popular cult in 4th century Rome…much more popular than Christianity…and was the religion of Constantine I prior to his adoption of Christianity. Constantine deliberately combined many aspects of Christianity and Mithraism, in order to ensure the success of the former. Eventually, with the outlawing of Pagan festivals and worship, the Christians adopted many of the customs and traditions of Saturnalia, and incorporated them into the stolen festival of “Christmas.” That’s probably why you’re confused.
[I]“It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.”[/I] 12th century Christian Bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, as quoted in [I]Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries[/I], Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p. 155.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59767]By the way when I say “you” I am referring to Western civilisation as it is today, corrupted with the Abrahamic ethos. Do you actually know the original religion of Western civilisation is not Christianity, but Hinduism? The original religion you guys followed was Proto-Indo-Euopean which is none other than the Vedic religion i.e., Hinduism.
Do your research you will find the ancestors of your people were Hindu - we share the same language family, the same mythology and same culture. Celtic society was little different to Vedic society for instance and had similar ethos. You will find that the day you call Christmas and made to believe it was the birthday of Jesus is an absolute lie. It is actually the supposed birthday of a Vedic god Mithra.
Christianity was forced on us from the Asura civilisation of the Middle East. The primitive desert culture. The original Europeans and we Hindus are from the same family. We Hindus invite you back to your ancesteral religion. Reject this Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Quoted For Truth.
Thank you for that erudition- I didn’t know about the roots of Saturnalia as deeply as that- I do know about Mithras though and how popular it was- It was primarily brought in by the rank and file of the military as I remember. " Truth is Beauty and Beauty is
Truth " Yeats ( I think ) quoted for perspective. Bhakti yoga is everywhere and it is beautiful.
[QUOTE=TonyTamer;59719]To someone without understanding this was primitive, barely skilled. Picasso saw it for what it was, a new frontier in the imagination of man- abstracted forms- he also saw the cave art for what it was- miracles of art with primeval colors of red , white and black, colors that resonate in our archetypal minds and representative forms in stone- no do overs. The simple silence of an ancient rishi is more potent and resonant of larger life than all of our quibbling. [/QUOTE]
I agree and I think it is vital to keep this perspective in mind when considering any expression of human creativity.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59736]Amir, I am not going to engage your posts on India, Hinduism and Vedas again, because you know nothing about them. You have constantly embarrased yourself on this forum(in other areas well) whenever you opened your ignorant mouth to speak of this matter. You posted India was always a poor country in the “Clash of civilisations threads” I then showed you not only was it not always poor, it was the richest country up until the 18th century. Guess what? You stopped posting there. Now you have made another blunder:
If I were you I would be embarrased after what I am about to reveal. “The untouchables” did not come from Brahman’s feet - it was the shudras. The shudras are not the same as untouchalbles they are the labour class in society who serve all. The untouchables is not mentioned in the Vedas, they appear in much later Indian society and were called chandalas.
Moreover, if you can’t notice that the Vedic hymn is using a metaphor to describe how the world spirit divided itself into the four classes of society - from the head came the brahmana because this is the area of speech and intellect, from the arms came from the kshatriyas because this is the area of strength, from the thighs came the vaisyas because this is the area of activity and motion, and from the feet came the shudas because this is the area of the foundation of the body by which it remains upright - then you are an idiot.
Finally, I am referring to the Vedic science as enunciated in the formal schools of Hindu philosophy and science. Not to the scriptures such as the Upanishads and the Vedas. The difference is, if you knew anything, the formal schools do not use mythology or poetry - they are straight technical descriptions.
It is clear you speak from ignorance and yet you claim to be the Buddha himself and everything you say is an emanation of truth. You are full of it. Even a fool knows when to shut up.[/QUOTE]
I am rejoining the discussion with an intent to learn/relearn from my past mistakes.
Surya Deva does have vast amounts of past knowledge. However, I think he is not related to current state of Hindu/Vedic system.
The four classes of society is developed so that certain people (who are supposed to be at the top) enjoy benefits and others serve them in obedience. This is classic Hindu caste system developed/mis-interpreted by so called Brahmins (It is not something the wise sages, wanted to happen).
Till the Britishers came, vast majority of Indians do not have an education system. So, for some Brahmins, Britishers appeared to be “villains” because they are taking away their monopoly on knowledge and right to get educated.
Same thing goes in Yoga. Unless it is propagated that Yoga is a Hindu system and one needs to learn it from a “guru”, it does not benefit to some brahminic people.
There was a post with noble prize winners/scientists giving “good words/certification” to Vedas, Vedanta etc. It is true that there is more science in Vedas and Vedanta than that is currently developed. However, it is the non-Indians who actually developed/proved that science for most part and made it to be utilized in practical life.
As it goes in history:
-
The great old Indian(?) sages developed good systems through vedas and other old sanskrit texts. Some of it might have been in practical use in the very old days. However, there is no proof of its continued usage.
-
Since education was confined to brahmins in India (whose population is less than, say, 10%), and true vedic culture of knowledge improvement and inquiry was degraded, most brahmins do just recite the mantras and think that they know everything. The current state of vedic knowledge and its application is just based on tradition. No new knowledge is developed. In fact, some brahmins even today, say, do not change/translate vedas or otherwise one would invite the wrath of Gods !! Now, there are more sanskrit/vedic scholars in Germany/Europe than in India.
-
In summary, it is the chauvinism of brahmins and other elite Indian groups that lead to current degradation and “ego-based-self-glorification”.
-
We have even some professors in India, who say everything in science and knowledge, is copied from vedas. They, however, can not answer the question, why there are no computers based on “sanskrit” or any other thing like electricity and magentic properties developed based on vedas.
[QUOTE=yaram;59806]We have even some professors in India, who say everything in science and knowledge, is copied from vedas. They, however, can not answer the question, why there are no computers based on “sanskrit” or any other thing like electricity and magentic properties developed based on vedas.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I dunno…maybe because India has been constantly invaded by Abrahamic conquerors for the past few centuries?
[QUOTE=TonyTamer;59796]Thank you for that erudition- I didn’t know about the roots of Saturnalia as deeply as that- I do know about Mithras though and how popular it was- It was primarily brought in by the rank and file of the military as I remember. " Truth is Beauty and Beauty is
Truth " Yeats ( I think ) quoted for perspective. Bhakti yoga is everywhere and it is beautiful.[/QUOTE]
Bhakti yoga in its purest form does not exist in Christianity. It always has a ulterior motive, to reach a better destination after death (heaven). Bhakti yoga is based on Hindu philosophy. Hindus did not need a conference to decide whether women had a soul. Hindus even belief that animals and plants are all jivas. Bhakti is expressed in the Lalita sahasranama where it says, she is the mother of a little insect up towards Brahma. Bhakti is expressed by the words of Prahalada Maharaj who says, send me to hell so that others can go to heaven. No bhakti yoga is not possible with a pure Christian foundation, no matter how much one loves that bleeding corpse nailed on wood. You cannot seperate bhakti from Hinduism and its philosophy.
Leave dogma and faith behind-believe in openess and clarity as the neutral science of yoga invites ; live life in the now that encompasses past and future.
Absolutely be clear and be neutral.
Christianity teaches that every non-Christian is condemned and will be punished with eternal suffering
Hinduism teaches that every being in this universe is divine and will one day return to divinity. Hence why we say “Namaste” the divnity within me greets the divinity within you.
Are you going to be neutral now? Then compare and contrast. Are they just different or is one actually ethically more developed?
Besides, we have a huge inheritance from Indian culture , I gratefully acknowledge, I have always been drawn to it’s beauty . There is Beauty all over the world and good people everywhere. A sincere heart that loves selflessly is closer to God than all the words of the Bible or the Vedas. I try only to reject hate in myself and accept it in others as twisted love. I was about to say I don’t waste my time rejecting Christianity but I do waste my time on this as my words mean nothing to you. You are a cup that’s full.
Your ancesteral religion is Hinduism. What you are not acknowleding is Christianity was forced onto your ancestors - and you practice a religion your ancestors were forced to adopt by the sword.
There is good and bad everywhere in the world, and nothing is completely good and completely bad(states Krishna this in the gita) So we have to be objective and say what is better and what is worse. I will ask you again which is better:
-
Christianity teaches that every non-Christian is condemned and will be punished with eternal suffering
-
Hinduism teaches that every being in this universe is divine and will one day return to divinity. Hence why we say “Namaste” the divnity within me greets the divinity within you.
Just be honest with yourself and answer the question.
Isn’t the sanskrit for religion yana meaning vehicle ? My car is a Honda Accord, it gets me where I want to go as long as I take care of it. Namaste
Sanskrit does not have a word for religion. The closest is dharma, but dharma is not just religion it is law, science, society, spirituality and philosophy. The word dharma simply means natural order. Everything has a natural order. To know the dharma of anything means you must be precise in classifying everything about that thing by observation.
As for your analogy: You are assuming your Honda can actually get there. I have a better analogy: a map. If you have a map to your destination you simply plot the best course and then go. The more detailed the map the smoother your journey. Hinduism has a very clear map. It took me 10 years of immense study to realise this map. Now, that I have the map, I do not have to worry or think about anything - I simply follow it to the destination.
In Hinduism we take “Sankalphas” which can either be daily, yearly or for an entire life. It is similar to what you call a “resolution” However, in Hinduism breaking a sankalpha is considered very wrong. This is because it indicates weakness of spirit and will power(ichaa shakti). In your culture people make resolutions and break them all the time and causal about it. Not so with a Hindu, we will feel immense guilt. Goal setting is therefore paramount in the life of a Hindu. Most Hindus know what to do with their life: complete degree and education, start work and get married by 25; social service and leisure by 50; and spirituality by 75. Hence why we have our institution of family still intact.
Therefore before we set the goal we make sure we have everything mapped out from the beginning. All the thinking needs to be done beforehand, because when we get to work on executing it, we want minimal thinking and pure dispassionate action. This is why dharma is important. When we have perfected something already at the level of mind, then it leads to perfect speech and perfect action. This is why we have perfect sciences. You guys on the other hand barely think and rush into things, jump to conclusions, make errors, then rush into more things and jump again to conclusions. Hence why you grow through the successive falsifications of previous paradigms. This is mirrored in the differences in our scientific approach. You focus outside with your limited senses gather data, but as you cannot gather all data at once, you end up forming conclusions based on limited data. On the other hand, we focus inside on the intellect and intuition which are not limited by time or space, so we obtain timeless and spaceless knowledge. Hence dharma.
If you live like a Hindu you will live a superior grade of life. You will develop greater will power and intellect and achieive greater success in life. We are very practical and scientific people and offer practical solutions to life. To be honest it is shame people like yourself cannot realise this and would prefer to follow a primitive desert culture that has the blood of hundreds of millions on its hands. Take your own words of wisdom - BE NEUTRAL - drop your attachment to this religion, and return to your ancesteral religion. You are already doing its Yoga anyway - why not make the full transision to the religion you benefit from so much and share the benefits with others by letting them know about it?
Hindus could build a good argument that a non subjective entity, say from outer space, might rate Hinduism the better of most attempts this planets religions, since they seem to argue Buddhism theirs also. I still think if you expose and educate the masses of the world they will gravitate towards the better methods.
Sarva,
“Yoga is not an ontological concept, but a description of the practices that are based on Hindu philosophy”
Drop the philosophy and go deeper into the practice. The search for Truth is a scientific approach, and nothing, absolutely nothing should be accepted without question. Neither does yoga have any roots in philosophy, but in direct experience. Out of direct experience, certain masters started speaking about the matter according to their own interpretations. And naturally - the mind is capable of seeing things from as many interpretations as possible. Out of this, all of the various philosophies and belief systems have been born - none of which are capable of transmitting the Truth. Unless you have your own eyes for seeing, there can be no substitute. At the most - if certain intellectual knowledge comes into ones awareness - it should be considered only a hypothesis. One needs to investigate for onself and verify it - not on the basis of tradition, but out of ones own intelligence. Because you are not functioning out of your own intelligence, you need to cling to a tradition or a belief system to tell you what to do and how to think, which ultimately destroys your own intelligence.
“and the philosophy of it religious offshoots which according to you are all false identifications”
All philosophy - whether offshoots on on-shoots, are a far cry away from the Truth.
“Yoga simply is completely meaningless, without its foundation laid down in the vedas and upanishads”
You should ask yourself where these sages obtained their understanding, and whether their understanding is right just because it is an accepted tradition.
“Practicing yoga without understanding of its foundation is as useful as launching a rocket in space without a destination”
Then the earliest masters who have discovered the yogic sciences, who had no masters, no teachers, and no scriptures, must have been launching rockets out into space.
Yaram,
"Unless it is propagated that Yoga is a Hindu system and one needs to learn it from a “guru”, it does not benefit to some brahminic people. "
That is correct. These Brahmin priests, that is their profession. Their profession is to represent their religion and obtain as many followers as possible - they want to claim a monopoly over the yogic sciences. First, by declaring that the Vedas is a revealed scripture from God. Second, by declaring that only through being initiated into their sect, that there is a possibility of liberation. There are even certain mantras which are probihited to the lower castes, because they are too impure. And even in the yogic sciences, this same dogmatic tendency has continued, unfortunately. For example, in Mantra Yoga, it has been said that unless a mantra is received from a guru and unless you are initiated, then the mantra is useless. This is simply nonsense. Because otherwise, how did the first masters start using these mantras ? Where did they come from ? They were not self-existent, somebody must have discovered or invented them. If one says that even these masters received the mantras from their masters, then again - the question remains, how did the first masters start using these mantras ?
In the beginning, there were no masters, no teachers. There were only those who investigated as deeply as possible into themselves and came to certain discoveries before they started speaking about it. So this idea that a mantra is only useful through initiation from a master is just nonsense, and the attempt of certain people to try and monopolize their methods. Initiation can be useful as far as awakening certain energies both without and without oneself. But if you declare that only by being initiated can you use these mantras, then you are simply being dogmatic. And many followers, blindly following in the fold, simply believe this because it is tradition. Of course, tradition in their eyes has to be greatly respected and accepted, it has an ancient seal of approval.
Sarva,
“Bhakti yoga in its purest form does not exist in Christianity. It always has a ulterior motive, to reach a better destination after death (heaven). Bhakti yoga is based on Hindu philosophy.”
More arrogant nonsense, along with the Sanskrit writing under your name.
If you understood anything about bhakti yoga, you would know that all that is needed is one-pointed devotion and surrender. No philosophy, no religion is needed, if you are willing to surrender and surrender totally - then whether you are following a religion or whether you are an atheist, you are a bhakta. You can be an atheist and have such gratitude towards the universe, that you are far more religious than a theist in your experience. Whether one believes or believes in something, that is not the point. Bhakti yoga, like all of the other forms of yoga, has nothing to do with Hinduism, and more to do with the simply fact that if you truly surrender to existence in devotion, then your liberation is inevitable. If any human being goes through this, he will come to know of the same space - it is a natural event.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;59834]Sarva,
Drop the philosophy and go deeper into the practice. The search for Truth is a scientific approach, and nothing, absolutely nothing should be accepted without question. Neither does yoga have any roots in philosophy, but in direct experience. Out of direct experience, certain masters started speaking about the matter according to their own interpretations. And naturally - the mind is capable of seeing things from as many interpretations as possible. Out of this, all of the various philosophies and belief systems have been born - none of which are capable of transmitting the Truth. Unless you have your own eyes for seeing, there can be no substitute. At the most - if certain intellectual knowledge comes into ones awareness - it should be considered only a hypothesis. One needs to investigate for onself and verify it - not on the basis of tradition, but out of ones own intelligence. Because you are not functioning out of your own intelligence, you need to cling to a tradition or a belief system to tell you what to do and how to think, which ultimately destroys your own intelligence. [/quote]
You are pretending to be a yogi, but you are speaking like a charvakin (atheist materialist) accepting only pratyaksha pramana, direct perception as evidence. Yoga accept three pramanas pratyaksha (direct perception), anumana (inference) and shabda (scriptures). If you had any idea of why you are doing what you are doing, instead of just doing what looks fashionable (pretending to be enlightened), you would be true to your Charvaka philosophy. You would not bother with something like yoga and just live life and be merry, maybe do some yogalates to train your muscles. But for some reason you have convinced yourself that you must pretend to be the Buddha and flood this discussion board with incoherent thought. If that is your idea of fun, I feel sorry for you.
You should ask yourself where these sages obtained their understanding, and whether their understanding is right just because it is an accepted tradition.
“Practicing yoga without understanding of its foundation is as useful as launching a rocket in space without a destination”
Then the earliest masters who have discovered the yogic sciences, who had no masters, no teachers, and no scriptures, must have been launching rockets out into space.
Whether you believe yogic knowledge comes in direct succesion from the highest being or whether you believe it was developed by sages, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel. You can call me arrogant, but thinking that you can reinvent yoga on your own makes you not only arrogant, but also deluded.
Sarva,
“Bhakti yoga in its purest form does not exist in Christianity. It always has a ulterior motive, to reach a better destination after death (heaven). Bhakti yoga is based on Hindu philosophy.”
More arrogant nonsense, along with the Sanskrit writing under your name.
If you understood anything about bhakti yoga, you would know that all that is needed is one-pointed devotion and surrender. No philosophy, no religion is needed, if you are willing to surrender and surrender totally - then whether you are following a religion or whether you are an atheist, you are a bhakta. You can be an atheist and have such gratitude towards the universe, that you are far more religious than a theist in your experience. Whether one believes or believes in something, that is not the point. Bhakti yoga, like all of the other forms of yoga, has nothing to do with Hinduism, and more to do with the simply fact that if you truly surrender to existence in devotion, then your liberation is inevitable. If any human being goes through this, he will come to know of the same space - it is a natural event.
How do you even know about liberation? How do you know that bhakti is a valid path towards liberation? You cannot answer these questions without giving credit to the tradtion (or pretending to be someone who won the enlightenment lottery).
~Amir
Many of your post throughout this Forum seem to be natural ways of progressing when we’ve overcome lower levels of existence but you seem adamant to suggest we’re conditioned and that enormous effort is required to overcome these preconditions, I’m finding the progressions more instinctive and then substantiated through various methods, mostly meditation but these methods also seem natural in effort?
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;59841]You are pretending to be a yogi, but you are speaking like a charvakin (atheist materialist) accepting only pratyaksha pramana, direct perception as evidence. Yoga accept three pramanas pratyaksha (direct perception), anumana (inference) and shabda (scriptures). If you had any idea of why you are doing what you are doing, instead of just doing what looks fashionable (pretending to be enlightened), you would be true to your Charvaka philosophy…[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure where to begin the debate since you base so much on belief, faith and acceptance of tradition?
We are talking here about what yoga is and for that we have to look at the yoga shastras to look for definitions. Some are saying what yoga is according the tradition, others are saying that they like yoga to be a pink unicorn. It is completely irrelevant what you want yoga to be.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;59841]You are pretending to be a yogi, but you are speaking like a charvakin (atheist materialist) accepting only pratyaksha pramana, direct perception as evidence. Yoga accept three pramanas pratyaksha (direct perception), anumana (inference) and shabda (scriptures). If you had any idea of why you are doing what you are doing, instead of just doing what looks fashionable (pretending to be enlightened), you would be true to your Charvaka philosophy. You would not bother with something like yoga and just live life and be merry, maybe do some yogalates to train your muscles. But for some reason you have convinced yourself that you must pretend to be the Buddha and flood this discussion board with incoherent thought. If that is your idea of fun, I feel sorry for you. [/QUOTE]
What Yoga accepts (three pramanas/sources/references) is for development of science and for improving existing things. It is like modern equivalent of what science believes as sources/authentic references (published research/experiments/logical deduction). These kinds of pramanas exist even today in western science and are not specific to Yoga/Hinduism. For fun, one can add “google” as modern pramana 
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;59841]
Whether you believe yogic knowledge comes in direct succesion from the highest being or whether you believe it was developed by sages, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel. You can call me arrogant, but thinking that you can reinvent yoga on your own makes you not only arrogant, but also deluded.
How do you even know about liberation? How do you know that bhakti is a valid path towards liberation? You cannot answer these questions without giving credit to the tradtion (or pretending to be someone who won the enlightenment lottery).[/QUOTE]
Please do not degrade delusions/hallucinations. Most of creative work (including some sages and some cults in India) have the tradition of inducing hallucinations to see whether something new happens in their minds. There are some physicists who take some sort of drugs to get into that state.
Bhakti is just one path. And, the so called liberation is just a play of mind or just a concept…very abstract concept.
I am rejoining the discussion with an intent to learn/relearn from my past mistakes.
I am going to assume you are an innocent and honest Hindu and have no agenda - till proven guilty. Hence I will be polite despite the fact that many statements you have made are false and highly ignorant:
The four classes of society is developed so that certain people (who are supposed to be at the top) enjoy benefits and others serve them in obedience. This is classic Hindu caste system developed/mis-interpreted by so called Brahmins (It is not something the wise sages, wanted to happen).
I am assuming you are a Dalit sympathizer? That is good, we should sympathize with their plight because of how they are disadvantaged in Indian society today. Many Hindu organizations are also working towards their upliftment. However, what would be bad is holding Hinduism responsible for this, rather than histo-socio-economic factors. It sounds like you are, by saying the caste system was developed to keep certain people at the top and others in obedience.
You are mistaking the dharmic varna system for Western feudal systems. In the Western feudal systems it was indeed true there was a dominant class and a submissive class. The dominant class oppressed the submissive class. Moreover this was caste based, because to be a member of a dominant class you had to be born into and belong to bloodline. In fact the ruling class of even today can be traced to bloodlines as far as the Roman empire.
There was absolutely no social mobility in Western society up untill even 100 years ago. Even today if you are born working class you remain working class throughout your life. The ruling class is a very elite club. This tradition goes back to Ancient Sumeria. Back then there were only two classes: slaves and priest-kings. The ruling class basically decided everything and what to believe. If you went against it you would be punished.
Thus Western sociological model is based on conflicts of power - individuals and groups competing with one another for power. There is always a ruling class and ruled class and the ruling class sets the ideology of society.
[I]The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class - Karl Marx [/I]
This will explain to you why Western society has undergone so many revolutions
Now coming to the dharmic varna system. Varna comes from the root vr, meaning to choose or select i.e., it is about selecting or organizing society into class divisions and occupational divisions. There are four main class divisions and countless occupational divisions. The next question is to ask is what is the dharma of each class division in society. This was answered as follows:
Brahmana: Scholars, to teach and advise. Requires the quality of intellect and refined speech
Ksatriyas: Warriors, to protect and govern. Require the quality of strength, courage.
Vaishya: Merchants, to manufacture, produce and distribute. Require the quality of working hard and knowledge of trade
Shudras: Labourers, to work for the others. Require no qualifications
All are said to be born Shudras. This means everybody by default begins as a Shudra with no qualifications. They become twice-born when they attain qualifications via education allowing to move into other classes.
In the varna system social mobility has always been possible, but to a much lesser extent since the British. Consider the great Emperor Chandragupta Mauraya was born as a servant, but was selected by Chanakya because of his great warrior qualities and thus moved to the kshatriya class. Many Brahmana risis were born from carpenters, fishmongers, smiths etc, but because they were so intelligent, they were taken under the tutelage of gurus and moved to Brahmana class. Karana, though was actually born from Kunti and was therefore already kshatriya, was mistakenly believed to be the son of a charioteer. He moved to kshatriya class when Duryodhana made him a king noting his great warrior skills.
A king of Hastinapur was born from a fishmonger woman. The great scholar and prime minister of Hastinapur Vidhura was born from a maid.
Wiki: Caste system
Prior to the British use of Varna categories for enumerating and ranking the Jatis in the decennial Census, the relative ranking of the Jatis and castes was fluid and differed from one place to another, based on their political and economic power.[15] Sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[16]
According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes. Flexibility in caste laws permitted very low-caste religious clerics such as Valmiki to compose the Ramayana, which became a central work of Hindu scripture. There is also precedent of certain Shudra families within the temples of the Sri Vaishnava sect in South India elevating their caste.[16] The following is a list of changes in varna cited in Hindu texts:
Manu eldest son [Priyavrata] became king, a Kshatriya. Out of his ten sons seven became kings while three became Brahman. Their names were Mahavira, Kavi and Savana. (Ref bhagwat puran chap.5)
Kavash Ailush was born to a Sudra and attained the varna of a Rishi. He became mantra-drashta to numerous Vedic mantras in Rig-Veda 10th Mandal.
Jabala’s son [Satyakama] born from unknown father became Rishi by his qualities.
[Matanga] became a Rishi after his birth in low Varna.
According to some psychologists, mobility across broad caste lines may have been “minimal”, though sub-castes (jatis) may have changed their social status over the generations by fission, re-location, and adoption of new rituals.[17]
Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies.[18][19] He asserts that the caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time; instead, movement has always been possible, especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to “rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism” i.e. adopt the customs of the higher castes. While theoretically “forbidden”, the process was not uncommon in practice. The concept of sanskritization, or the adoption of upper-caste norms by the lower castes, addressed the complexity and fluidity of caste relations.
Prior to the British, the caste system as it is known today did not exist. The British misinterpreted what varna and jatis were and reclassified Indian society according to jatis and from this arose the caste system as you know it today - as a rigid birth based system. It also had a political agenda to sow division amongst the varnas by portraying the bramanas as the booeymen and to convince “Dalits” to convert to Christianity.
Moreover, the so called “Dalits” of today previously belonged to highly prosperous classes and were skilled craftmans. However, when the British abolished India’s traditional industries, they were reduced to abject poverty and hence their current condition.
Till the Britishers came, vast majority of Indians do not have an education system. So, for some Brahmins, Britishers appeared to be “villains” because they are taking away their monopoly on knowledge and right to get educated.
I really must question where you are getting this knowledge from? Indians did not have an education system it was only for the Brahmins? Are you joking? Gandhi very famously said that the beautiful tree of education of India was uprooted by the British. The historian Dharampal then took it upon himself to prove through empirical research just how beautiful this education system was in his monumental work, “The Beautiful tree” - and how the British killed it off by abolishing it. He used British primary sources themselves to prove it:
Wiki: Dharampal
Dharampal’s third major work entitled The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century (1983) provides evidence from extensive early British administrators’ reports of the widespread prevalence of educational institutions in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies as well as in the Punjab, teaching a sophisticated curriculum, with daily school attendance by about 30% of children aged 6–15, where those belonging to communities who were classed as Shudras or even lower constituted the majority of students, and in some areas, for instance in Kerala, where Muslim girls were quite well represented.
The impressive picture of early colonial India that emerges from this pioneering historical re?search is supplemented by an extensive collection of essays in which Dharampal stresses the need for further investigation, firstly, into the sophisticated societal, economic, and cultural mechanisms that had facilitated these accomplishments, and secondly, into understanding the processes by which these institutions declined and gradually fell into oblivion, and thirdly, into how knowledge generated in India had been appropriated, refined and integrated into early modern British and European scientific and cultural institutions, and fourthly, a rigorous study of the mechanisms by which Indian society had been shattered and cognitively colonized under the impact of British rule.
Dharampal (The Beautiful Tree) has effectively debunked the myth that Dalits had no place in the indigenous system of education. Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras, ordered a mammoth survey in June 1822, whereby the district collectors furnished the caste-wise division of students in four categories, viz., Brahmins, Vysyas (Vaishyas), Shoodras (Shudras) and other castes (broadly the modern scheduled castes). While the percentages of the different castes varied in each district, the results were revealing to the extent that they showed an impressive presence of the so-called lower castes in the school system.
Thus, in Vizagapatam, Brahmins and Vaishyas together accounted for 47% of the students, Shudras comprised 21% and the other castes (scheduled) were 20%; the remaining 12% were Muslims. In Tinnevelly, Brahmins were 21.8% of the total number of students, Shudras were 31.2% and other castes 38.4% (by no means a low figure). In South Arcot, Shudras and other castes together comprised more than 84% of the students!
In the realm of higher education as well, there were regional variations. Brahmins appear to have dominated in the Andhra and Tamil Nadu regions, but in the Malabar area, theology and law were Brahmin preserves, but astronomy and medicine were dominated by Shudras and other castes. Thus, of a total of 808 students in astronomy, only 78 were Brahmins, while 195 were Shudras and 510 belonged to the other castes (scheduled). In medicine, out of a total of 194 students, only 31 were Brahmins, 59 were Shudras and 100 belonged to the other castes. Even subjects like metaphysics and ethics that we generally associate with Brahmin supremacy, were dominated by the other castes (62) as opposed to merely 56 Brahmin students. It bears mentioning that this higher education was in the form of private tuition (or education at home), and to that extent also reflects the near equal economic power of the concerned groups.
As a concerned reader informed me, the ‘Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay (1820-1830)’ showed that Brahmins were only 30% of the total students there. What is more, when William Adam surveyed Bengal and Bihar, he found that Brahmins and Kayasthas together comprised less than 40% of the total students, and that forty castes like Tanti, Teli, Napit, Sadgop, Tamli etc. were well represented in the student body. The Adam report mentions that in Burdwan district, while native schools had 674 students from the lowest thirty castes, the 13 missionary schools in the district together had only 86 students from those castes. Coming to teachers, Kayasthas triumphed with about 50% of the jobs and there were only six Chandal teachers; but Rajputs, Kshatriyas and Chattris (Khatris) together had only five teachers.
Even Dalit intellectuals have questioned what the British meant when they spoke of ‘education’ and ‘learning’. Dr. D.R. Nagaraj, a leading Dalit leader of Karnataka, wrote that it was the British, particularly Lord Wellesley, who declared the Vedantic Hinduism of the Brahmins of Benares and Navadweep as “the standard Hinduism,” because they realized that the vitality of the Hindu dharma of the lower castes was a threat to the empire. Fort William College, founded by Wellesley in 1800, played a major role in investing Vedantic learning with a prominence it probably hadn’t had for centuries. In the process, the cultural heritage of the lower castes was successfully marginalized, and this remains an enduring legacy of colonialism.
Examining Dharampal’s “Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century,” Nagaraj observed that most of the native skills and technologies that perished as a result of British policies were those of the Dalit and artisan castes. This effectively debunks the fiction of Hindu-hating secularists that the so-called lower castes made no contribution to India’s cultural heritage and needed deliverance from wily Brahmins.
Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: “.the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes.”
Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that “.more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together… these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; they preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes. in fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into Brahmanism.” So much for the British public denunciation of the exclusion practiced by Brahmins
Had you instead said most British people did not have education prior to the British coming to India and it was due to India that Britain got education, then you would have been right:
For England had few schools for the children of ordinary people till about 1800. In his first report, Adam observed that there exist about 1,00,000 village schools in Bengal and Bihar around the 1830s, not to talk of the rest of India. The content of studies was better than what was then studied in England. The duration of study was more prolonged. The method of school teaching was superior and it is this very method which is said to have greatly helped the introduction of popular education in England but which had prevailed in India for centuries.
Adam’s 1st Report on Bengal. Survey of Post 1800 material. His conclusions, one every village had atleast one school and in all probability in Bengal and Bihar with 1,50,748 villages, there will still be 1,00,000 villages that have these schools. Two on the basis of personal observation & evidence collected he inferred there were app 100 institutions of higher learning in each district meaning app 1,800 such institutions and 10,800 scholars in them.
In England at the end of the 17th century there are Charity Schools whose main purpose was that every child was to learn to read the Bible. Around 1802, the monitorial method of teaching used by Joseph Lancaster (and also by Andrew Bell, supposedly borrowed from India, Ibid pg 246, Note on Indian Education by Alexander Walker quote 'The children were instructed without violence and by a process peculiarly simple. The system was borrowed from the Bramans and brought from India to Europe.
The Shudras did indeed get education, and in fact the population of childen at schools was made out of mostly Shudras:
- Number of Native Schools/Colleges in Madras Presidency &Number of Scholars. This table is an attachment to a report by J Dent, Secretary, Fort St George, 21/2/1825. Number of Schools 574 Colleges 0, Population 4,54,754, includes male & female. Students are male + female i.e. male 184100 balance is female.
of schools = 12500
Brahmin = 42502 (23%)
Vysea = 19669
Soodra = 85400 (45%)
Other = 27548
Muslims = 13561
Total = 188680
- Sudras made up 45% of the scholars as compared to Brahmins 23%, today is probably the reverse.
Sources for the above quotes, more reading, with further articles and to discussion can he found here
[QUOTE=yaram;59849]What Yoga accepts (three pramanas/sources/references) is for development of science and for improving existing things. It is like modern equivalent of what science believes as sources/authentic references (published research/experiments/logical deduction). These kinds of pramanas exist even today in western science and are not specific to Yoga/Hinduism. For fun, one can add “google” as modern pramana :D[/quote]I have not said that these pramanas were exclusive to Hinduism. Amir said he only accepted pratyaksha pramana which technically makes him a Charvakin in terms of Indian philosophy.
Please do not degrade delusions/hallucinations. Most of creative work (including some sages and some cults in India) have the tradition of inducing hallucinations to see whether something new happens in their minds. There are some physicists who take some sort of drugs to get into that state.
Bhakti is just one path. And, the so called liberation is just a play of mind or just a concept…very abstract concept.
I have seen modern new age writers compare samadhi with schizophrenia, but this is not accepted in the yoga traditions. The guru will guide a disciple to discern between past sanskaras manifesting during meditations and authentic samadhi. In the maitrayana upanishad the six limbs of yoga are pranayama, pratyahara, dhyana, dharana, [I]tarka[/I] and samadhi. Tarka is the discernment between hallucinations and authentic samadhi.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;59845]~Amir
Many of your post throughout this Forum seem to be natural ways of progressing when we’ve overcome lower levels of existence but you seem adamant to suggest we’re conditioned and that enormous effort is required to overcome these preconditions, I’m finding the progressions more instinctive and then substantiated through various methods, mostly meditation but these methods also seem natural in effort?[/QUOTE]
Indeed Ray, Amir speaks from his self-created ivory tower of Buddahood telling everybody to reject philosophy, scriptures, thinking, language - and yet the irony is Amir reads tons of books himself, is always philosophizing in every thread, cites from scriptures all the time and obviously uses language.
He also says a lot of ignorant stuff born out of poor knowledge. Notice how I exposed many of those statements he arrogantly asserted, and he has not responded back 
Yet he still has not shut up his mouth about making statements on Hinduism/India/Yoga. It is pretty simple really if you don’t know something, then be humble and say you don’t know or say as much as you know and admit your ignorance. Yet, because he believes he is the Buddha he genuinely believes everything coming out of his mouth is universal truth.