Truth about yoga (a article for discussion)

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#401

[QUOTE=yaram;60145][B]1)[/B] 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.

[B]2)[/B] 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.

[B]3)[/B] 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]

  1. And Yoga would only be an use? A simple tool?! If Yoga is a simple use to someone, yes, the douche doesn’t need to know anything, just stand upside down and meet God. :wink:

  2. Considering you understand (or even accept) the mechanics of karma, being born in India and attaining a stage of enlightenment out of little effort would mean this guy has lots of punya karma. What does this have to do with the fact that for someone to better understand Yoga one needs to understand Hinduism, some people are born with the knowledge, others need to seek it. And where would one seek knowledge about yoga? I’m sure it would not be in the local church.

  3. It’s a not falsification, you’re using warped logic to justify your point. One does not need Hinduism if he’s got it within, however, that doesn’t negate the fact that the external source is Hinduism, that is physically concentrated in India.

If I follow your example, X borns knowing how to play the guitar. Therefore saying Y person would need to go to a respectable school of music to learn is a falsification of facts? X doesn’t negate Y that doesn’t negate X back.

#402

Indeed, there are other forms of yoga which are seemingly unscientific like Karma and Bhakti Yoga, however on the process level it attempts to achieve one pointedness and thus obtain the same goal of yoga. However, these Yogas are considered inferior vehicles in the yoga yore itself, but recommend for the kaliyuga because people lack the abstract mind or at least find it really difficult. They are not yoga in the strict sense they are more about ritual and charity, but they still produce purification of heart and mind. Ultimately they lead onto Raja Yoga - the royal yoga, the scientific yoga via which ones learns to master the senses and the prana and withdraw them inwards to enter into samadhi. This cannot be achieived when one is actively engaged in the world. It requires complete stillness.

It is somewhat of a misconception though that bhakti yoga, karma yoga and raja yoga are separate paths. They in fact go hand in hand. If you are a bhakti yogi you will engage largely in temple worship, idol worship, pilgramages, prayers, fasts, kirtan but also japa, pranayama and dharana on your ishta devata. If you are a karma yogi you will dedicate yourself to service but you will also do bhakti and maybe even raja yoga. Most Hindu ashrams include all.

Although your point is duly noted one does not have take the scientific raja yoga, bhakti and karma yoga is even more Hindu in the eyes of a Westerner. It involves elaborate prayer, ritual, fasting, idol worship, kirtaan which is highly alienating for a Westerner. In fact this is what they associate Hinduism with. Hence why they separate Yoga from Hinduism because they want nothig to do with bhakti. Again the philosophy behind bhakti is exclusive to Hinduism and is enunciated in the Brahma sutras and Narada Bhakti sutras of worshipping Saguna Brahman in order merge into ones Saguna Brahman or have a darshan. It always involves idol worship which is absolutely anithetical to Christianity. It involves chanting the name of your ishatva devata with feverish devotion which even Christian monks do not do. There is another quality that is antithetical to Christianity you can choose your bhava in how you want to relate to god: god as father, god as mother, god as teacher, god as friend, god as lover, god as child. If you even as much as suggested to a Christian priest that god is your lover you would get condemned.

So basically the point still stands Yoga in whatever form is not compatible with Christianity. It is a Hindu.

#403

[QUOTE=vimoh;60153]
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]

As I am attached to my own version, as any one of you(vimoh, Surya-Deva…etc). Facts are perceptions.

The thing you have mentioned about Kaalidasa as a Hindu as relevant as Newton being a Christian/some other religion. Kaalidasa did not write his poetry thinking for each new poem that he is a Hindu.

#404

[QUOTE=yaram;60154]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.[/QUOTE]

I’m sure it’s the experience of many here that the Vedas speak of high truths that provide great uplifting spiritual experiences.

Just because you don’t experience, or get things in the symbolical, religious, philosophical level doesn’t mean [I]there’s nothing out of the blue and beyond ordinary comprehension which is present[/I] there.

However, this statement alone is enough to show everyone here that is indeed fruitless to argue anything with you. Because you’re not only wasting the time of people that see more into that certain material, but you’re also wasting your own time speaking of something you think little of.

#405

[QUOTE=Pietro Impagliazzo;60158]I’m sure it’s the experience of many here that the Vedas speak of high truths that provide great uplifting spiritual experiences.

Just because you don’t experience, or get things in the symbolical, religious, philosophical level doesn’t mean [I]there’s nothing out of the blue and beyond ordinary comprehension which is present[/I] there.

However, this statement alone is enough to show everyone here that is indeed fruitless to argue anything with you. Because you’re not only wasting the time of people that see more into that certain material, but you’re also wasting your own time speaking of something you think little of.[/QUOTE]

You can do the time-management yourself. That cannot be helped by somebody else over a internet forum.:smiley:

#406

[QUOTE=Pietro Impagliazzo;60158]I’m sure it’s the experience of many here that the Vedas speak of high truths that provide great uplifting spiritual experiences.

Just because you don’t experience, or get things in the symbolical, religious, philosophical level doesn’t mean [I]there’s nothing out of the blue and beyond ordinary comprehension which is present[/I] there.

However, this statement alone is enough to show everyone here that is indeed fruitless to argue anything with you. Because you’re not only wasting the time of people that see more into that certain material, but you’re also wasting your own time speaking of something you think little of.[/QUOTE]

Quick question: Have you ever read even some parts of Vedas yourself?

#407

It depends what version of the Vedas you have read Yaram. If you mean the English translations done by colonial Christian missionaries which are plain horrible to read, then no you have not read the Vedas.

#408

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60161]It depends what version of the Vedas you have read Yaram. If you mean the English translations done by colonial Christian missionaries which are plain horrible to read, then no you have not read the Vedas.[/QUOTE]

No Sir, I did study the translated version (which does have sanskrit sloka/stanza as well) by Indian authors who are Hindu brahmins. I bought them in an Indian temple bookstore !!
Besides, I know my fair bit of sanskrit having studied it for 5 years in school and college.

As somebody who lives out of India, it may be surprising for you to see even the translated versions of vedas in India. To me, your opinions are something like that of Brahmin under Britisher rule (Fearing that somebody steals your posessions).

#409

Krishnamurthy may have said those things. However, it makes no difference to me, because his opinion means nothing to me. I think he is a highly arrogant man(apologies to his fans) and whatever I have read and seen of him has left my cold. He is hardly represenative of a Hindu brahmin, because he was adopted by a Western family from the theosophical organization who wanted to bring him up so they could present him a messiah or world teacher, but in the end Krishnamurthy rejected theosophy and went his own way. Here is a discourse of him with David Bhom, notice how forceful and arrogant he comes across and how fidgety he is:

This is not an enlightened man by any means.

#410

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60163]Krishnamurthy may have said those things. However, it makes no difference to me, because his opinion means nothing to me. I think he is a highly arrogant man(apologies to his fans) and whatever I have read and seen of him has left my cold. He is hardly represenative of a Hindu brahmin, because he was adopted by a Western family from the theosophical organization who wanted to bring him up she they could present him a messiah or world teacher, but in the end Krishnamurthy rejected theosophy and went his own way. Here is a discourse of him with David Bhom, notice how forceful and arrogant he comes across and how fidgety he is:

This is not an enlightened man by any means.[/QUOTE]

Yes…this seems good…that is the main reason he said himself to not to follow what he is saying or doing. He has undergone tremendous conflict within himself. To summarize: he is not a hypocrite or false guru.

#411

I have read Bible from cover to cover, studied for some time with Christians, and read some books dozens of times but I know that it would take many years to learn ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and study in depth. It does not interest me. I have also read also large parts of Rig Veda, texts and books about it. These are really different. There is nothing special to show off.

I have come to the conclusion that to really grasp Vedas especially Rig Veda, one has to be familiar with Sanskrit (Rig Veda is in Vedic Sanskrit more complicated and older than Classical Sanskrit) and get the key either with help or by yogic siddhi to go beyond a superficial understanding. These are products of a symbolic age and not a rationalist and intellectual age like ours. Translations and analysis of European indologists from 19th century are twisted, of low-quality if not completely rubbish. Moreover Vedas have been composed in special states of consciousness and were meant to be heard like mystic poetry. Horse for instance is a symbol for life, life-force. Indra is a symbol for the illumined mind, we find common root with Indriyas, the senses. You will not get very far with a quick reading. Reading does not mean complete understanding.

Philippe

#412

As somebody who lives out of India, it may be surprising for you to see even the translated versions of vedas in India. To me, your opinions are something like that of Brahmin under Britisher rule (Fearing that somebody steals your posessions).

I have had to rely on translated versions and it is very difficult to find translations: I have read Muller, Griffith, Dayananda, Ghosh, Chand, Vidyalankar and Aurobindo’s hymns to Agni. The best way to read them I found was to read the transliterated Sanskrit and have a Sanskrit dictionary with me. By far the best version I found was Ghosh.

I don’t quite understand why are you defending the British so much? Do you actually trust their scholarship on the Vedas? I suppose you believe in the Aryan invasion theory, correct?

#413

[QUOTE=Philippe*;60165]I have read Bible from cover to cover, studied for some time with Christians, and read some books dozen of times but I know that it would take many years to learn ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and study in depth. It does not interest me. I have also read also large parts of Rig Veda, texts and books about it. These are really different. There is nothing special to show off.

[B]I have come to the conclusion that to really grasp Vedas especially Rig Veda, one has to be familiar with Vedic Sanskrit and get the key either with help or by yogic siddhi to go beyond a superficial understanding. There are products of a symbolic age and not a rationalist and intellectual age like ours.[/B] Translations and analysis of European indologists from 19th century are twisted, of low-quality if not completely rubbish. Moreover Vedas have been composed in special states of consciousness and were meant to be heard like mystic poetry. Horse for instance is a symbol for life, life-force. Indra is a symbol for the illumined mind, we find common root with Indriyas, the senses. You won’t get very far with a quick reading. Reading does not mean complete understanding.

Philippe[/QUOTE]

You are correct. I know that…However, if those are what the pre-conditions of vedic study are, then in my knowledge, nobody has studied them for the past few centuries (may be some 700 years or so). That is because “yogic sidhi” transfer is not something that comes from father to son as is being practiced in current Brahmin families or just by birth.
So for all practical purposes, vedic knowledge is destroyed.

#414

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60166]I have had to rely on translated versions and it is very difficult to find translations: I have read Muller, Griffith, Dayananda, Ghosh, Chand, Vidyalankar and Aurobindo’s hymns to Agni. The best way to read them I found was to read the transliterated Sanskrit and have a Sanskrit dictionary with me. By far the best version I found was Ghosh.

I don’t quite understand why are you defending the British so much? Do you actually trust their scholarship on the Vedas? I suppose you believe in the Aryan invasion theory, correct?[/QUOTE]

There are not only translated versions of veda (in English and in some Indian languages), there are very good authentic books on other limbs of knowledge
(like tarka, mimamsa, nyaya, artha sastra…so on…very big list). There are also vedic schools maintained by Indian governments, however, the real output is just recitation. No student can explain the meaning or significance.

I am neither defending British rule nor do I think their scholarship on vedas nor do I believe about aryan invasion theory. What I mean to say is that because you may be based in UK, you are out of touch with even the basic Brahmanism/Hinduism (forget vedas, yogas). Your knowledge, to me, is bookish (my personal opinion).

Indians and Hinduism have changed so much that they are more global than ever. What I mean to say is that you may be living in a British culture with Hindu beliefs. And the natural attachment to some belief (which can not be overcome unless you realize “liberation”) makes you one confused soul. No well meaning Brahmin/Yogi/Hindu (let us say…B.K.S. Iyengar) can share your views.

#415

You will not get very far with a quick reading. Reading does not mean complete understanding.

Absolutely, reading the Vedas was one of the hardest things I tried to do. I realised that each word was divided into several particles and I needed the Nirukta to piece together the meanings of each word. At this rate I was reading a verse a day! I realised it was pointless to read the transliterated version and take too much time, so I decided I would leave it for later life when I learn Sanskrit.

However, I had an intuition about each word I was reading. I knew it had a deeper meaning both in a cosmological sense and a metaphysical sense. For example note that Indra is the first born and he is born by through the union of the masculine Dyaus and the femine pritvhi who impregnates pritvhi , from whose contact is born Indra. Indra is said emerge by peircing through his mothers womb of pritvhi. When Indra is born he kills his father Dyaus. Then slays Vritra who is holding the waters and releases the waters of soma and agni and brings about the dawn(usha) and raises the sun in the sky.

Notice how similar this is to the Samkhya evolution scheme: Purusha and Prakriti unite, from this is born the intellect. The intellect then causes manifest existence and from this follows the ahamkara which then develops the indriyas. Interestingly the root of Indra is Indh which means powerful one and Indra is described as being arrogant and powerful - and as you pointed out yourself the senses are called the indriyas which means indra must be the ego and intellect which controls them.

If you read it cosmologically it also makes sense: Indra fissions the nothingness from which he relases the cosmic waters(apas) and from the cosmic waters he creates the sun - surya. Surya comes from the root su meaning to compress. In other words the sun is literally highly compressed space.

There are very deep meanings encoded in the Vedas - almost like a form of consciousness encryption. You can understand them if you are at a certain level of consciousness.

#416

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60170]Absolutely, reading the Vedas was one of the hardest things I tried to do. I realised that each word was divided into several particles and I needed the Nirukta to piece together the meanings of each word. At this rate I was reading a verse a day! I realised it was pointless to read the transliterated version and take too much time, so I decided I would leave it for later life when I learn Sanskrit.

However, I had an intuition about each word I was reading. I knew it had a deeper meaning both in a cosmological sense and a metaphysical sense. For example note that Indra is the first born and he is born by through the union of the masculine Dyaus and the femine pritvhi who impregnates pritvhi , from whose contact is born Indra. Indra is said emerge by peircing through his mothers womb of pritvhi. When Indra is born he kills his father Dyaus. Then slays Vritra who is holding the waters and releases the waters of soma and agni and brings about the dawn(usha) and raises the sun in the sky.

Notice how similar this is to the Samkhya evolution scheme: Purusha and Prakriti unite, from this is born the intellect. The intellect then causes manifest existence and from this follows the ahamkara which then develops the indriyas. Interestingly the root of Indra is Indh which means powerful one and Indra is described as being arrogant and powerful - and as you pointed out yourself the senses are called the indriyas which means indra must be the ego and intellect which controls them.

If you read it cosmologically it also makes sense: Indra fissions the nothingness from which he relases the cosmic waters(apas) and from the cosmic waters he creates the sun - surya. Surya comes from the root su meaning to compress. In other words the sun is literally highly compressed space.

There is very deep meanings encoded in the Vedas - almost like a form of consciousness encryption. You can understand them if you are at a certain level of consciousness.[/QUOTE]

One would get the same “understanding”, if one reads the Bible and related religious texts. Of course, they will not have names like Indra, Prithvi, Apas…they will have different names for them.

So a devoted Christian would get the same enlightenment if he reads the Bible and digests/understands/believes in it.

[B]For that matter, any religious text, if believed and practiced, is a path of Yoga.[/B]

#417

Have you actually read the bible?

#418

[QUOTE=yaram;60172]One would get the same "understanding", if one reads the Bible and related religious texts. Of course, they will not have names like Indra, Prithvi, Apas...they will have different names for them.

So a devoted Christian would get the same enlightenment if he reads the Bible and digests/understands/believes in it.

For that matter, any religious text, if believed and practiced, is a path of Yoga.[/QUOTE]

#419

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60174]Have you actually read the bible?[/QUOTE]

Yes…some parts…upto the Adam and Eve stuff. There are similar things like Prakriti and Purusha in the Bible itself (as far as I know).

The similar references, just like rig-veda regarding to the creation of universe, I think may not be in Bible itself. However, I am really sure that some other Christian religious book had got that. I read it as causal reading in a church that once I happened to visit.

#420

[QUOTE=yaram;60169]There are not only translated versions of veda (in English and in some Indian languages), there are very good authentic books on other limbs of knowledge
(like tarka, mimamsa, nyaya, artha sastra…so on…very big list). There are also vedic schools maintained by Indian governments, however, the real output is just recitation. No student can explain the meaning or significance.[/quote]

I have read the Arthshastra, Nyaya sutras, some of the Mimasa sutras. The Vedas I no longer cite from now, because I am not at the level yet to understand them. So I stick to the post-vedic texts.

What I mean to say is that because you may be based in UK, you are out of touch with even the basic Brahmanism/Hinduism (forget vedas, yogas). Your knowledge, to me, is bookish (my personal opinion).

I have done the best I could. I was born in a Sikh family so I did not really get the trapping of a Hindu life, but I got it indirectly through a Sikh life by attending the Gudwara, meeting the Gyanis and watching Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranic stories at home. Occasionally, we would go to the Hindu temple because my mother was good friends with them. In was in later life that I became very fascinated by the Vedas and went to the Hindu temple and got myself a translation from Swami Dayananda and several copies of the Vedic magazine from the Arya Samaaj. Later, learned meditation from the Brahma Kumaris, then for a year I was part of Anandamarga Yoga, recently I did a 10 day course in Vipassana meditation and a few months of Satyananda yoga. My step is going to India to find myself a guru.

I have done fairly well for a Sikh British Indian to return back to my mother culture. I know practically nobody else in the Sikh community who is like me. I have many spiritual friends who are theosophists, gnostics and kabbalists and they themselves think I am highly Vedic.

Indians and Hinduism have changed so much that they are more global than ever. What I mean to say is that you may be living in a British culture with Hindu beliefs. And the natural attachment to some belief (which can not be overcome unless you realize “liberation”) makes you one confused soul. No well meaning Brahmin/Yogi/Hindu (let us say…B.K.S. Iyengar) can share your views.

This is not a belief for me, this is my path in life now. It is my mission now to bring the Vedic civilisation back on this planet. This is why I am going in India in a search of a guru. I want to do great tapasya/sadhana to develop the will power, intellect, presence and fortune to succeed in my mission in making this whole world Aryan. Dharma will return to this planet. I will make sure of it.