Doctrine is a dead thing if people don’t breathe life into it so listening to the people can show you the relative life in a doctrine, Sarva…
Reposting this part due to typos:
If existence is not expressed then what we are doing here? Looks pretty expressed to me 
You say that the idea of unity depends upon non unity. In logic we can represent the element unity as U.
The compound non-unity is the function NOT U. Therefore unity actually comes before non unity. As unity is a pure element, non unity is compound of unity + the operator NOT, therefore unity comes before non unity. Just as one comes before two. Therefore, while two depends on one, one does not depend on two.
Hence unity can exist without duality, but duality cannot exist without unity. A simple logic really. Should be no problem to follow by a Buddha
Sarva,
“This is a kind of chicken or the egg question and not really relevant in discussing the conceptual ground of the yoga practices.”
It is not really the case. The science of yoga has its origins in direct experience, not in philosophy. Philosophy is trying to use the mind to think about Truth, and the whole approach of the yogic sciences is to move beyond the mind and come to a direct seeing of Truth. But the problem is that if you are already identified with a certain belief system - then the mind is such that it will see whatever it wants to see. The first masters were not following any tradition or belief system - their whole work was entirely alone in the alone, in the darkness of their own ignorance. Whenever one enters into a new territory which has not been explored before, there has never been any masters, scriptures, or teachers before you to guide you along the path. And the first masters had to inquire as deeply as possible into their own being in order to discover what works and what does not work, enter into the laboratory of ones own being, try and fail many times before one gets a sense of the Way. It is only once one had come to a certain direct experience, that certain masters started speaking about their understanding. And whether you are Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, atheist - it is absolutely irrelevant. In spite of our different belief systems - Hindus are suffering, Buddhists are suffering, Christians are suffering, atheists are suffering, all are suffering alike. Unless one comes to insight as to the psychological hindrances which are preventing oneself from coming to ones liberation, suffering is inevitable.
“The fact remains that yoga as we know of today is based upon the foundation of vedic knowledge and its branches.”
It is based on the foundation of direct experience, not tradition. Traditions have been just a means to transmit these methods, it is just like a vehicle. But that does not mean that these methods originate in tradition. Nothing is ever born ready made, and all of the words and descriptions of various masters are just ways to indicate towards something that is to be directly experienced. Once you come to the space, one will immediately understand that these words and descriptions are just dream-like illusions which one has been chasing for centuries. That is why in the yogic sciences it has always been spoken of Maya, that your perception of things is just like a dream. Truth is such, that it is going to shatter everything that one has assumed about existence right down to the very foundation. All of your clinging to tradition, beliefs, philosophies - or just about anything whatsoever is just out of fear - it is an attempt to provide comfort and security to ones ego. Man is far more interested in comfort and security rather than coming to know the Truth. If you have any sincerity - you will recognize that you are simply ignorant, that you have gathered all kinds of knowledge which has not managed to bring any illumination to your being, on the contrary it has only helped to solidify your delusions and egotism.
“How do you know any of this, or anything else you say on this board about yoga, to be true?”
My understanding is not based upon tradition, belief, or philosophy - it is out of my own direct experience of Truth. And to come to know of the Truth does not mean seeking something outwardly, but coming to know oneself, through and through.
Surya,
“First, I think we should all be aware of how sane Amir is. He claims to be a Buddha - because he can cut a slice of bread and make toast - but more effortlessly than anybody else because he is awake.”
Though ones senses are intact, one continues pretending to be asleep. If you understood anything of what I had said - you would know that any action that arises out of ones communion with ones true nature is going to be in communion with existence itself. Actions have no quality in themselves, it is ones inner awareness. An action which arises out of unawareness is of a totally different kind than the same action which arises out of awareness. If you have come to your awakening, then it includes things as simple as breathing, eating, sleeping, urinating, defecating, whether sitting silently or involved in a storm of activity. And that is the very peak of the yogic sciences, to come to a state of sahaja samadhi, where your samadhi becomes as spontaneous as your own breath. If you think what I have said to be a matter of cutting a slice of bread or not - then you are simply being foolish.
“He claims all other great spiritual masters Patanjali, Yogananda, Vivekananda, Aurobindo are all lying”
That you are willing to state things which I have never said shows how deceptive your own mind is. It is well in harmony with your general tendency to try and be manipulative in life - which so far has left you empty and unfulfilled. What I have said was that several masters invented several different devices as a skillful means to transmit their teaching. In the yogic sciences, it is known as “upaya”, which is simply skillful means. There is nothing wrong with using useful lies to assist others towards their enlightenment. Because what is true or not true is not relevant - Truth does not belong to the boundaries of our language. What is relevant is anything which is capable of assisting you towards your liberation. Gautama Buddha, when speaking to Hindus, used to use the word “Atman” to help them relate, even though a central part of his understanding was Anatman, no-self. Yogananda invented the fiction that Babaji was “One” with Jesus Christ, and together these masters send out vibrations into the world. This was a way to make his teaching more accessible to the Christians. Upon his dying, he declared that there would be no successor after him because that was “Gods” will. This was a way to preserve his teachings. These are all just skillful means.
“He claims to have reinvented meditation by himself”
More deceptive tendencies. I have said that I have discovered meditation without the help of a master or a teacher. Meditation is not something that can be invented, you cannot invent a state of consciousness.
“He claims he has no opinions and everything he says is an emanating from absolute truth.”
I have said that everything I am saying arises out of my own direct experience, not that what I am saying is Truth. If you just look at what I have said here on this thread - you will find that I have said the same thing again and again, that Truth is inexpressible, and whatever can be said about it is dimensions apart from the reality. That includes even what I am saying.
“If you did not discriminate between this and that you would not be able to discriminate between your mouth and your ass Amir, is your mouth and your ass the same?”
If you were being mindful, you would have understood. If everything in existence is of one and the same energy, then there is no point clinging to ones ideas as to what is “sacred” and “profane”, what is “good” and “bad”, right or wrong, who is Hindu and who is Christian, a rock, a tree, a bird, weeds or flowers, jewels or dung. In all directions, though the appearances may be different, it is one and the same original nature.
“If existence is not expressed then what we are doing here? Looks pretty expressed to me”
You are pretending to have missed the message though you understood what I meant. When I say existence is inexpressible, it simply means that it does not belong to any of our one-sided interpretations of the mind.
“I said Yoga is a Hindu philosophy and Amir said the term is meaningless. Let us consult an encyclopedia of philosophy shall we”
The encyclopedia is intended to give you a general idea of the subject. Hinduism is very difficult to define, because it does not refer to any particular belief system or philosophy.
"So tell me are you clinging to your knowledge that “time and time again the scientists had been forced to change this views”
No, that simply means that I recognize the reality. That does not mean that I am clinging to it, it simply means that I see it.
Surya,
“Hence unity can exist without duality, but duality cannot exist without unity.”
The mind functions in such a way, that it creates polar opposites out of everything. The only reason there is the idea of the non-dual is because of the idea of dualism, just as you cannot know light unless you know darkness, nor would you have an idea of death unless there is life. This may be useful as far as being convenient for daily living, but as far as Truth is concerned, this kind of perception is insufficient in coming to know of things as they are - it is like trying to see a whole picture by cutting it up into smaller and smaller bits and pieces.
This is a kind of chicken or the egg question and not really relevant in discussing the conceptual ground of the yoga practices
Certainly, have you noticed how the other camp has no arguments but just empty rhetoric like philosophizing over what Yoga means, or what Hindu means or talking about onesness and love.
The point we are making here is a factual and practical one: Yoga is Hindu. It was developed by the founders of Hinduism the Vedic risis as a means to get to ultimate truth and reality. It is both a Hindu practice and and philosophy. Every Hindu scripture teaches Yoga. Every Hindu guru teaches Yoga. Hinduism and Yoga are inseparable.
Now if it so happens that Yoga is perfectly valid and it works which there makes it a science then that Hinduism is a true religion then. As it so happens its methods work. So if you are going to say Yoga is universal, then Hinduism is also universal. Indeed that is what we’ve always said: santana dharma.
Why does Yoga work - because Hinduism is a true religion. It teaches actual facts about the nature of reality not beliefs. Recall the encylopedia article I posted:
Because these views of the world differed, they had to be proved and properly established. Accordingly, logical and epistemological tools were developed and fashioned according to the needs and beliefs of individual philosophers. Most agreed on two or three sources of knowledge: perception and inference, with verbal testimony as a possible third. In this quest for philosophical rigour, there was a need for precision of language, and there were important philosophical developments among the grammarians and the philosophers who explained the Vedas
There is an actual logical and scientific method which is used to arrive at the doctrines of Hinduism: atman, brahman, dharma, karma and yoga. Purusha and Prakriti are inferred based on this method. From this their interdependence is also inferred. From this the gunas are inferred. From this purusha collapsing prakriti from her avyaktam state into the vyakta state is inferred. From this is inferred the fact of embodiment is purusha becoming misidentified with prakriti. From this is inferred that the process can be reversed by attaining discriminative knowledge of purusha and prakriti by suspending the body and mind through meditation, causing the process to reverse. Hence why in Yoga you start going inwards: pratyhara, dharana, dhyana, various stages of samadhi - back to the primordial state before the collapse.
This clown thinks that he attained the final state just because he can is mindful which allows him to cut slices of bread like a pro 
However, the final state is at the fundamental level of matter past the atoms, past the quantum field, past the mental field, past the causal field and pass the consciousness field into the absolute reality. If one was really enlightened one would no longer see bread. They would see the atoms, then the waveforms, then the thought-forms, then the guna activity and finally the vibrations of consciousness. The fact that this guys still sees bread means he is no more enlightened than your average joe on the street
Though ones senses are intact, one continues pretending to be asleep.
I know you mean me so why use “one” rather than “you”. Instead be honest and say “Your senses are intact, but you continue pretending to be asleep” You will sound more authentic that way.
If you understood anything of what I had said - you would know that any action that arises out of ones communion with ones true nature is going to be in communion with existence itself.
Indeed, I know, everything you say and do is all emanating purely from truth
I would say ego, but you can believe it is truth if it makes you feel better.
If you have come to your awakening, then it includes things as simple as breathing, eating, sleeping, urinating, defecating, whether sitting silently or involved in a storm of activity. And that is the very peak of the yogic sciences, to come to a state of sahaja samadhi, where your samadhi becomes as spontaneous as your own breath. If you think what I have said to be a matter of cutting a slice of bread or not - then you are simply being foolish.
Haha, so the peak of Yoga science is so you can have a more natural, effortless and spontaneous shit? :lol:
That you are willing to state things which I have never said shows how deceptive your own mind is. It is well in harmony with your general tendency to try and be manipulative in life - which so far has left you empty and unfulfilled. What I have said was that several masters invented several different devices as a skillful means to transmit their teaching. In the yogic sciences, it is known as “upaya”, which is simply skillful means. There is nothing wrong with using useful lies to assist others towards their enlightenment. Because what is true or not true is not relevant - Truth does not belong to the boundaries of our language. What is relevant is anything which is capable of assisting you towards your liberation. Gautama Buddha, when speaking to Hindus, used to use the word “Atman” to help them relate, even though a central part of his understanding was Anatman, no-self. Yogananda invented the fiction that Babaji was “One” with Jesus Christ, and together these masters send out vibrations into the world. This was a way to make his teaching more accessible to the Christians. Upon his dying, he declared that there would be no successor after him because that was “Gods” will. This was a way to preserve his teachings. These are all just skillful means.
You are claiming that Yoganandas made up his life story in his autobiography and Patanjali fabricated the chapter on siddhis in order to entice people with false promises. Yep, you are accusing them of being liars.
By the way did this knowledge come from your direct experience i.e., did you go back in time and catch them lying?
More deceptive tendencies. I have said that I have discovered meditation without the help of a master or a teacher. Meditation is not something that can be invented, you cannot invent a state of consciousness.
Then you discovered meditation by yourself, which is what I said. Although were are not stupid on this forum and we know you read books learned meditation from the books. It is clear to anybody who is not an idiot you have read loads of books. Unfortunately, you lack integrity, so you claim you discovered all this knowledge by yourself. We know you took of most it from Zen.
I have said that everything I am saying arises out of my own direct experience, not that what I am saying is Truth. If you just look at what I have said here on this thread - you will find that I have said the same thing again and again, that Truth is inexpressible, and whatever can be said about it is dimensions apart from the reality. That includes even what I am saying.
Ok, so what you are effectively saying here is that everything you say arises of your direct experience and what you say you are in communion with the truth and existence. So therefore you indeed are saying every you say is a fact.
I will ask you directly do you make mistakes? Have you said statements and realised they were false later? (I know of a few…))
If you were being mindful, you would have understood. If everything in existence is of one and the same energy, then there is no point clinging to ones ideas as to what is “sacred” and “profane”, what is “good” and “bad”, right or wrong, who is Hindu and who is Christian, a rock, a tree, a bird, weeds or flowers, jewels or dung. In all directions, though the appearances may be different, it is one and the same original nature.
So is your mouth and your ass the same? And is what comes out of it the same as well?
You are pretending to have missed the message though you understood what I meant. When I say existence is inexpressible, it simply means that it does not belong to any of our one-sided interpretations of the mind.
Then try to be objective and you won’t be one-sided anymore
The encyclopedia is intended to give you a general idea of the subject. Hinduism is very difficult to define, because it does not refer to any particular belief system or philosophy.
But we are not talking about Hinduism the religion here. We are talking of Hindu philosophy which the encylopedia identifies as an actual tradition of philosophy and indeed Yoga is one of the philosophical schools. Therefore my statement Yoga is based on Hindu philosophical schools is absolutely correct.
Concessions now Mr Buddha.
No, that simply means that I recognize the reality. That does not mean that I am clinging to it, it simply means that I see it.
I noticed how you avoided answering some points where I exposed you. Did you see these:
Now tell us earlier your statements that “Untouchables came from the dirty feet of Brahmin” and “India was always materially poor” - which were disproven - did they come from your direct perception?
Do you know every statement you make on the forum. Did you know for example, “Untouchables came from the dirty feet of Brahman” Please answer
You also did not answer this:
Africans have used steam engines, Indians have used steam engine, Chinese have used steam engines - does that mean the steam engine is not a Western inventon born out of the Western empirical and capitalist tradition?
“The mind functions in such a way, that it creates polar opposites out of everything.”
The mind perceives that which itself is fragmented, it is not merely the mind creating such distinctions. It is obviously necessary to view ‘a whole picture by cutting it up into smaller and smaller bits and pieces’ in order to identify that which constitutes wholeness or emptiness. The problem is that it cannot be achieved through the intellect alone, since the mind may only retain a singular concept among a myriad, at any given time.
“I know you mean me so why use “one” rather than “you”. Instead be honest and say “Your senses are intact, but you continue pretending to be asleep” You will sound more authentic that way.”
Please excuse the religious term, but Amen to that.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60112]Surya,
“Hence unity can exist without duality, but duality cannot exist without unity.”
The mind functions in such a way, that it creates polar opposites out of everything. The only reason there is the idea of the non-dual is because of the idea of dualism, just as you cannot know light unless you know darkness, nor would you have an idea of death unless there is life. This may be useful as far as being convenient for daily living, but as far as Truth is concerned, this kind of perception is insufficient in coming to know of things as they are - it is like trying to see a whole picture by cutting it up into smaller and smaller bits and pieces.[/QUOTE]
Again bad logic boss. Non-dual is broken down to NOT dual and dual is a compound of NOT-unity. Thus unity is the element here. Unity cannot be broken down any further.
Compounds depend on their element, elements do not depend upon their compounds. For example for hydrogen to exist it does not need lithum to exist. Lithium could not exist, but hydrogen would still exist. Likewise 5 does not need 6 to exist because while 6 depends on 5, 5 does not depend upon 6.
Can you follow the logic? So darkness is not an actual substance - darkness is that which is lacking light. Light does not require darkness to exist. There can be light without darkness. However, there cannot be darkness without knowing how much light is absent. Light is an actual substance made of of photons - what is darkness made out of
No such thing as a negative exists. There is no darkness, no evil, no cold, no imperfect, no finite, no impermenant. A negative is simply a logical function of NOT + the element, not an actual existent thing.
So basically your relativity view is bunk. Good and bad are not codependent, but rather bad is dependent on good. Being and non being are not codependent, but non-being depends on being.
The nature of the human being is good, perfect, infinite, permenant, consciousness. This is because bad, imperfect, finite, impermenant and unconscious do not exist. The very fact that we can recognise bad, imperfect, finite, impermenant, unconscious which are compounds of NOT-good, NOT-perfect, NOT-infinite, NOT-permenant, NOT-conscious, means that our nature is actually good, perfect, infinite, permenant and conscious.
Arise ye god out of the delusion of Buddhahood
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60091]Pietro,
“Yoga is Hindu, developed in India, by Indians.”
[B]1)[/B] It is true that the technology of yoga has arisen out of India. But that does not mean anything except that the people who happened to discover these methods were of a particular geographical identity.
[B]2)[/B] Otherwise, to say that the technology itself is Hindu simply reflects one’s own ignorance.
[B]3)[/B] Even if you lived on another planet - if you have an understanding as to how to use these methods, they will work on any human being. And any human being is capable of coming to their enlightenment through the yogic sciences, these methods don’t make any discrimination.
[B]4)[/B] They are absolutely indifferent to your identifications, attachments, beliefs, opinions, likes and dislikes in the same way that a sword is indifferent to whether you are a Christian or a Buddhist.
[B]5)[/B] That is why a Buddhist can come to their enlightenment through the methods of yoga, or a Hindu, or a Jain, or an atheist, or a theist, or a panentheist, or a Jew, or a beggar, or an emperor, or whatever your status is.
[B]6)[/B] Technology is simply technology. Know how to use it, and it works. If you don’t know how to use it, it does not work.
“with reference to the Vedas, referenced by every Hindu scripture, purana, upanishad since times immemorial”
[B]7)[/B] There have been many people who have used the science who do not accept the Vedas or the Upanishads, who do not agree with the orthodox Hindus, and have made tremendous use of the science, including various awakened masters. There are many tantrics who have not accepted the Vedas, and have been considered as “outcasts” because of this by the Hindu Brahmins for centuries. And they have made just as much use of the technology as anybody else.[/QUOTE]
-
Do you say that Einstein happened to discover the theory of relativity? Can I say that Jungian psychology happened to be discovered by Jung? These are works of lifetimes, in my analogies, and work of generations upon generations in the case of Yoga. You CAN’T say that Indians HAPPENED to discover Yoga, they didn’t found it under a rock!
-
Ignorance on what? I’m not the one ignoring a whole LINEAGE and TRADITION.
-
I’m not saying they will only work on Hindus. You’re giving me the impression you’re thinking that when I say that Yoga is Hindu only Indian-born people are going to benefit from that. Yoga was developed by Hindus, based on Hindu scriptures and philosophy. That doesn’t mean a westerner (or people from any other place or faith) can’t use it (hopefully with the decency of admitting its roots). Yoga being Hindu is not discrimination, it’s a FACT.
-
Once again you’re attaching discrimination and xenophoby values, where there’s none. I really don’t get you. Is it because you are a muslim? Perhaps admitting something is Hindu is viewed as bad? Something alien?
-
I never said otherwise. Yoga being Hindu (just like the codified theory of relativity is Einstein’s), which is a fact, doesn’t negate that.
-
Exactly, if a person happens to be using a technology developed by Hindus, based on Hindu scriptures, it would only be sane that this person accepted its source and got to know more about it.
-
You’re right, astika and nastika. But astika and nastika TOWARDS what? That’s a key point. Hinduism and the Vedas need to exist for them to agree or disagree with. I’m sure Hinduism has no problems with nastika lines. If a certain line/theory/school is based on disagreeing with a certain element, that line could only exist because of the point of disagreement in the first place.
When these people say Yoga they only mean the practices of Yoga. This much is evident. I don’t think most of them care for the philosophy behind it. They just want the techniques for their own betterment and use them as they desire. This is why they argue these techniques are not used only in Hinduism but in Buddhism and Jainism. So why cant they use them? They portray it as a technology and thus like any technology they see it as public property for the creative use of anybody. I mean do you worry about who designed your engine or who invented the engine of your car when you drive it? Nah you just use it. However, before you learn to the drive car you do need to know some basics like how your car works, gears, clutch control, break, some basics about your engine, steering wheel, driving and maneuvers, road rules. No matter whhat practical undertaking you take there is always a theory class before it. It is exactly the same before you drive the car of Yoga: You need to know about Samkhya: the subtle body, the 5 pranas, chakras, nadis, kundalini, the atman, the sensory apparatus consisting of the 5 senses, the intellect. You need to know about Yoga: about the goal of stilling the minds activity to attain a pure mind state and reveal the atman and brahman. How that state is achieived using meditation. You need to know about the yamas and niyamas and read about examples of how they are practiced by reading about yogis present, recent and past. You need to know about the states of consciousness and various planes and the law of karma.
In short you need to immerse yourself into Hinduism. As can be seen nothing can be separated everything is part of this Hindu universe and interconnected. Therefore it is impossible to take Yoga out of it and not decontexualise it.
The thing about new-agers (and I know this because I used to be one) is that they subscribe to a very fast-food variety of spirituality. The search for the divine is a kind of hunger. When one feels it, one goes out in search of spiritual food. This food can be had from many sources, but some sources are more enriching than others.
New-agers follow a mix n match diet in spiritual matters. They will claim to “take the best from all sources” and form their own variety of personal spirituality. While this may sound awesome, it is not very fulfilling. They end up sounding like 3rd graders who have memorised a book on Quantum Physics and are considering themselves beyond this world.
Here’s a metaphor to explain this mix n match spirituality.
Clothes fulfill many needs. They are part of one’s personality, they are protection against weather, they hide nakedness and so on and so forth. The new ager caters to only one aspect – covering oneself up – since he doesn’t know what else he can do. So he picks up an underwear from one place and wears it on his head like a cap, he grabs a shirt from another place and wraps it around his loins, he gets a bed sheet from someplace else and covers his body with it. Then he considers himself fully clothed.
Technically, he is fully clothed. But he is by no means well-dressed.
The sages who discovered Yoga and put it to use in various ways in ancient India were not fools. They had reasons for the things they did. Yoga has literally formed Indian civilisation for ages, as a philosophy, a way of physical and mental well-being, a source of spiritual awareness, and also as a cultural value. There are no short cuts to this kind of knowledge.
Yet, we find people here who think that talking in relativistic moral high-speak will suffice. Sad really.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60134]When these people say Yoga they only mean the practices of Yoga. This much is evident.[B] I don’t think most of them care for the philosophy behind it.[/B] They just want the techniques for their own betterment and use them as they desire. This is why they argue these techniques are not used only in Hinduism but in Buddhism and Jainism. So why cant they use them? They portray it as a technology and thus like any technology they see it as public property for the creative use of anybody.
[/QUOTE]
The philosophy/theory behind a computer is necessary , only if, the user of the computer does some advanced research or building a better computer.
If one is re-inventing/modifying Yoga, then the theory of Yoga is necessary.
Another example is western medicine. One needs to get a doctor’s advice and not the theory behind western medicine to make use of it.
In short, “the level of abstraction” can be different for different purposes.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60134]
I mean do you worry about who designed your engine or who invented the engine of your car when you drive it? Nah you just use it. However, before you learn to the drive car you do need to know some basics like how your car works, gears, clutch control, break, some basics about your engine, steering wheel, driving and maneuvers, road rules. [B]No matter what practical undertaking you take there is always a theory class before it. It is exactly the same before you drive the car of Yoga: You need to know about Samkhya: the subtle body, the 5 pranas, chakras, nadis, kundalini, the atman, the sensory apparatus consisting of the 5 senses, the intellect. You need to know about Yoga: about the goal of stilling the minds activity to attain a pure mind state and reveal the atman and brahman. How that state is achieived using meditation. You need to know about the yamas and niyamas and read about examples of how they are practiced by reading about yogis present, recent and past. You need to know about the states of consciousness and various planes and the law of karma.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
There are Indians in the past and present, who attained yogic status without knowing any of the yoga terms described above. Take for example, “Karma Yoga”…A farmer who sincerely does his job and works hard and has a family to maintain. He is illiterate…Forget about Atman and Brahman, he does not even know the alphabets. Does he not qualify for a yogi? To me, he is a “karma yogi” (yogi by way of dedicated work). Similarly, Bhakti Yoga works…All that is needed is single-minded devotion. As somebody, pointed in the forum, the point of devotion can be a match-stick, a stone idol or an abstract concept of God as Siva, Krishna etc.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60134]
In short you need to immerse yourself into Hinduism. As can be seen nothing can be separated everything is part of this Hindu universe and interconnected. Therefore it is impossible to take Yoga out of it and not decontexualise it.[/QUOTE]
If illiterates are eligible for Yoga practice and attained Yogic enlightenment and liberation (examples: Bhakta Kannappa, a Lord Shiva devotee, Kaalidas, great Indian poet, who to start with was an illiterate), to say that one needs Hinduism and its theory is just falsification of facts.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60134]
As can be seen nothing can be separated everything is part of this Hindu universe and interconnected.
[/QUOTE]
This is a matter of perception, which varies from individual to individual. It is something like the old tale about [B]5 Indians who are blind[/B] and are touching an elephant. One holds the trunk of the elephant and shouts…“This is the right leg of the elephant”, another holds the tail of the elephant and shouts…“this is the trunk of the elephant” and so on.
[B]Everything is matter of experiential reality and God has not bestowed the human race with a perception of absolute reality. [/B]
May not be directly related to Yoga…However, the following link gives a perspective of modern Indian thought about various things like Hinduism, Spirituality etc…
J. Krishnamurthi
To start with, J. Krishnamurthi is a brahmin born scholar educated in traditional systems. After many highs and lows of his path on “Gnana Yoga” he came to the conclusion that Vedas, Vedanta can be concluded as either as trash or as something which can be summarized in a paragraph.(I agree with this view of vedas, because, the veda development is more based on arguments and logic than on experiments. One states a statement and others either oppose or support it and they come up with their own statements and thus a body of knowledge develops…That is how most (if not all) knowledge systems are developed) . One can either agree or disagree with what J.Jrishnamurthi want to say, but one can not ignore him.
Can you show us where he classifies Vedas (and even Vedanta) as “trash or as something which can be summarized in a paragraph”?
[QUOTE=yaram;60148]May not be directly related to Yoga…However, the following link gives a perspective of modern Indian thought about various things like Hinduism, Spirituality etc…
J. Krishnamurthi
To start with, J. Krishnamurthi is a brahmin born scholar educated in traditional systems. After many highs and lows of his path on “Gnana Yoga” he came to the conclusion that Vedas, Vedanta can be concluded as either as trash or as something which can be summarized in a paragraph.(I agree with this view of vedas, because, the veda development is more based on arguments and logic than on experiments. One states a statement and others either oppose or support it and they come up with their own statements and thus a body of knowledge develops…That is how most (if not all) knowledge systems are developed) . One can either agree or disagree with what J.Jrishnamurthi want to say, but one can not ignore him.[/QUOTE]
You are utterly confused about the vedas, where do you get your information?
[QUOTE=Pietro Impagliazzo;60149]Can you show us where he classifies Vedas (and even Vedanta) as “trash or as something which can be summarized in a paragraph”?[/QUOTE]
It is in a book written by him. I have read it few years back.You may or may not find it on internet. I had a hard-copy of that, but now I had lost it somewhere. If I find it sometime soon, I will let u know.
I am not saying he is “classifying” vedas. Having studied them, that is his personal view point. He never advocated anybody to believe him or forced his thoughts as a some “new-age” concept.
He not only says that veda, vedanta are trash…he questions many things like the rigid systems of Hindu dogmatic knowledge and practices like idol worship, temples, traditions.
He established an educational institution where the concepts like “mind without fear”, “actions with reason” are as much of importance as the text books of study.
Having myself studied some parts of rig-veda, I think the content is something similar to any content like Bible (about origins of universe and different gods and their birth etc…) or any religious text books. As far as my limited knowledge goes, all those descriptions are something like a starting point of describing the universe as if we apply set theory. (The universal atma is Universal set and there are individual sets and associations).
Anybody who has really studied the vedas (to study the 4 vedas in complete will take 4 lifetimes, in my opinion), will understand that they are meant for Universality and not meant for a religion. Of course, that is my personal opinion.
[QUOTE=yaram;60145]The philosophy/theory behind a computer is necessary , only if, the user of the computer does some advanced research or building a better computer.
If one is re-inventing/modifying Yoga, then the theory of Yoga is necessary.
Another example is western medicine. One needs to get a doctor’s advice and not the theory behind western medicine to make use of it.
In short, “the level of abstraction” can be different for different purposes.[/QUOTE]
There is no doubt that one does not have to be a computer engineer in order to use a computer. But the case we are making is that you should be an engineer so your knowledge is more complete, and therefore, more useful to you and those around you.
There are Indians in the past and present, who attained yogic status without knowing any of the yoga terms described above. Take for example, “Karma Yoga”…A farmer who sincerely does his job and works hard and has a family to maintain. He is illiterate…Forget about Atman and Brahman, he does not even know the alphabets. Does he not qualify for a yogi? To me, he is a “karma yogi” (yogi by way of dedicated work). Similarly, Bhakti Yoga works…All that is needed is single-minded devotion. As somebody, pointed in the forum, the point of devotion can be a match-stick, a stone idol or an abstract concept of God as Siva, Krishna etc.
You are now talking about Yoga as a philosophy. While the illiterate farmer may not know the nuances of the asanas, he benefits from Yoga as a philosophy. You are merely proving the points SuryaDeva and others have made. The need is to access a more complete version of Yoga.
If illiterates are eligible for Yoga practice and attained Yogic enlightenment and liberation (examples: Bhakta Kannappa, a Lord Shiva devotee, Kaalidas, great Indian poet, who to start with was an illiterate), to say that one needs Hinduism and its theory is just falsification of facts.
When you deny that Hinduism is needed, you seem to imply that Hinduism is a set of beliefs like Abrahamic faiths are. It is not. Kalidasa was born in India and was steeped in Indianness. That makes him Hindu. To say otherwise is a falsification of facts. A lot also depends on what you mean by illiterate. Some might say that being a Yogi and knowing the path of Yoga counts as literacy.
This is a matter of perception, which varies from individual to individual. It is something like the old tale about [B]5 Indians who are blind[/B] and are touching an elephant. One holds the trunk of the elephant and shouts…“This is the right leg of the elephant”, another holds the tail of the elephant and shouts…“this is the trunk of the elephant” and so on.
[B]Everything is matter of experiential reality and God has not bestowed the human race with a perception of absolute reality. [/B]
Regardless of the five blind men and their interpretations of the elephant, the fact remains that there was an elephant there and it did have a distinct shape. The human inability to make sense of reality does not negate reality itself. We may very well live in an incomprehensible reality, but even so, there are levels of reality within it that we do experience. Would you call this forum something non-existent? Or yourself? If so, why bother dealing with the unreality of this argument.
Fact is, in spite of all your high-sounding spirit talk, you are as attached to this world as we are. You wouldn’t be having this discussion otherwise.
Stop trying to muddle matters and show some respect for facts.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60150]You are utterly confused about the vedas, where do you get your information?[/QUOTE]
I have read some parts (mostly the first pages of different sections) of rig-veda myself.
You can buy a copy of any veda and see for yourself, if you are really interested. There is nothing out of the blue and beyond ordinary comprehension which is present in the vedas. Also, buy the Bible copy and read it to find similarities and differences.