Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#108

To accept the bible as proof for anything requires faith in the bible. That is called circular reasoning or begging the question. Amir has a made a very valid point, the bible is dubious because it gives contradictory accounts and makes exaggerations. It mentions how much the fame of Jesus had spread across lands etc, but the actual historians from that period make absolutely no mention of him.

You are obviously Christian, that we have all gathered - but you are possibly one of the most vicious and abusive Christians I have met online. Whenever any of your beliefs are questioned, even indirectly, you react by spitting venom.

#109

This is how you make critical remarks about concepts? This was your response to the point I made above.

#110

I feel compelled to correct what I said before. Actually it depends on the individual. It’s definitely true of Surya Deva, but thankfully it’s not true of everybody.

#111

Actually I’m sort of a spiritual mongrel, about 40% - 60% Catholic, 40% -50% Hindu, and maybe 10% -20% Buddhist. I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools for ten years. I still have great love and respect for the people who taught me when I was young, even though I haven’t been a member of any church for quite some time. I’m not a member of a church, because I am just not a fan of religion in general. Still, I find your anti-Christian hate speech to be highly offensive, and consider it to be the mark of ignorance.

#112

[QUOTE=Asuri;50306] Ordinary wakefulness is a projection of the mind? Not really. Ninety-five percent of what one had considered reality will disappear? No it won’t.[/QUOTE]

Asuri,

I would question this. If I have said that one’s ordinary wakefulness is just as much a distortion of “reality” as one’s dreams, there is a good reason for it. The first thing I would question is whether, in any state of consciousness, what one is experiencing is things as they are, or just an interpretation of things as they are through the senses.

#113

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;50307]Why does Asuri get away with so many insults? To add his list of insults. He is now called Amir a “con artist”

Notice how neither myself or Amir have insulted him back even once.

While myself, Amir and Awaare and everybody else are discussing the central topic, Asuri is busy attacking
people with really violent insults. Surely this is against the t&c.[/QUOTE]

Surya, : )

I don’t really mind if a person is using insults. It is not really relevant to me. But if one has a point which one would like to make, one must support one’s understanding with the logic behind it.

#114

Do not bother Amir. You are talking to a fundamentalist dualist. You will get no more a rational discussion with this guy than you will with a Christian creationist.

Asuri believes with all his heart and mind that god created this world for him to play in. He was raised catholic, and later got exposed to Hinduism and Buddhism, which he adapted to into his Christian framework.

He believes spirit and matter are absolutely separate like all Christians do, and anybody who tries to unify them, even without considering their reasons for doing so, are speaking nonsense and deserve condemnation. His list of hated people include some of the greatest philosophers in history for attempting such a thing.

He believes Patanjali did not say Yoga was the stilling of the mind and the removal of all thoughts, but Yoga is the removal of only negative thoughts. Ignoring that Patanjali actually gives a list of every vritti that one can have and how each one needs to be removed.

Catholic Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what they want to hear and forcing everything into a catholic viewpoint… Asuri is a good example. He has not even spared Patanjali.

#115

[QUOTE=Asuri;50308]@Amir

the miracles in the Bible make the same point, that God is not bound by laws of logic, causality, and consistency. I’m not taking a position either way, I’m just saying, it’s the same point.[/QUOTE]

And yet, the same idea of God has been created as a by product of the mind. Otherwise, what is it that one is calling God ? The Christians must have some definition as to what they mean by God. And they do. They have a certain system of philosophy about it. That is what all theology is, it is a branch of philosophy. “Theos” means “deity” or God. Logos means “words” or discussions. Hence theology means to discuss about God. In Christian theology, God is a Supreme Being, the creator of the Universe, who has created man in his image, and who has transmitted his message through a long line of prophets right down to Jesus, who is finally the Son of God himself - not only an avatara, but the only avatara.

If one says that God is not bound by the laws of logic, then the very idea of God itself becomes meaningless, as does the theology behind it. It would be better to do away with that idea completely. But then, both Judaism and Christianity would simply disappear, because their philosophy is based from the foundation on the acceptance of the existence of God. And the reality is that the moment a finite mind makes an attempt to understand the infinite, hallucination is inevitable. Hindus are equally convinced that Sanskrit is a divine language that has been handed down from the angels, just as much as Jews believe that Hebrew is also a divine language handed down from the angels. If you go look in China, all of their Gods are Chinese, speak the Chinese language, enjoy Chinese culture, wear Chinese clothing. If you look at the God of the black man, his God must be black. These are all projections of the ego, creating God in it’s own image.

But, if you consider the various “Gods” and “Godesses” of different religions to be simply symbolic of different aspects of the energy of nature in it’s evolution, then that is different.

#116

Surya,

If Asuri wants to cling to these conclusions, that is fine. But he should question why, regardless of our beliefs, Muslims are suffering, Jews are suffering, Christians are suffering, Hindus are suffering, Buddhists are suffering, Jains are suffering, atheists are suffering, agnostics are suffering, all are suffering alike. Perhaps our beliefs are absolutely irrelevant as far as living experience is concerned. And if a belief is not capable of bringing man to his liberation, then it should be questioned whether it is something worth clinging to.

#117

Amir,

This is why Asuri is irrational. He does not question these beliefs. He has publically said he hates critics. He is not even prepared to read anything that questions these beliefs.
One can only have a discussion or debate with someone who will engage your points. This man refuses to engage any points that go against his Christianized beliefs.

You know when you are talking to an irrational person, when they appeal to faith and when they react violently to valid questions and criticisms.

#118

@Surya Deva

You should look for job in propaganda. If you recall, I said I would not engage in pointless and worthless debate with you, because you are dishonest and your intentions are bad. As for your high minded approach of only making critical remarks on concepts, that appears to be out the window now, since it was so easy for me to show that was also a false projection of your mind. You continue to prove me right on every point. Thank you very much.

#119

As for your high minded approach of only making critical remarks on concepts, that appears to be out the window now, since it was so easy for me to show that was also a false projection of your mind.

For once I think you are right. I give you too much time and energy. If you want to make a fool out of yourself by abusing everybody who disagrees with you, I should just leave you to your devices.

Coming back to the topic. So far it is clear to the objective reader that the side that has the most strongest case is the case for non-dualism. You have failed to defend the case for dualism by refusing to answer any objections against it and failing to counter any of the arguments for non-dualism.

#120

@Surya Deva

For the fourth time, non-dualism leads to an impossible condition, which is the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity.

#121

[QUOTE=Asuri;50372]@Surya Deva

For the fourth time, non-dualism leads to an impossible condition, which is the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity.[/QUOTE]
Not if other laws operate at a meta-level: if the present experienced reality is a type of simulation. If you acknowledge that God limitless-ness implies that the observed laws of nature and logic as we know them are not necessarily true at all levels, then your statement is a matter of belief solely. Just as is mine only with a different conclusion. Essentially, we cannot know anything with 100% certainty (unless perceived by direct experience in Samadhi perhaps). It is like connecting the points in a graph: you can fit them linearly, you can fit them with a polynomial equation, you can fit them with a sinusoid: but which one corresponds to the truth? Science is built on assumptions. If you admit like me, that we cannot know these things then we agree at least on that.
As to SD’s opinion, although my beliefs align with his beliefs, I do not have the same conviction. Statements from mystical sources like “so above, so below” (implying that the same rules apply at any level) are not an authoritative source for me. Belief is preference, it is affinity.
That said, I regret very much that the tone in most threads I have participated in is degrading. The attitudes of contempt, disrespect, etc. and to make disparaging comments are in my opinion a means of seeking a place in the picking order. The Scales concludes anger arises from fear, but this is not necessarily always true. A lot derives from the attempt to place oneself above another in the picking order. My recipe to all of you: destroy your Ego, it will make you more happy.

#122

@Awwware

Those are good points. My position is based on reason, but if, as you say, God is not necessarily subject to the laws of reason at all levels, then my position would not necessarily be true. For practical purposes though, reason and the laws of nature are the only things we can rely on. You are right though, I’m more comfortable with the dualist point of view, for whatever reason, belief, affinity, or otherwise. If you and others have a different affinity or belief, I don’t have a problem with it.

#123

@Surya Deva

I am a person who tries to be conscientious about everything that I do. I don’t make rash judgments, I study the issues and try to find what truth may be found. I have not added any new material to my Samkhya-Yoga site for several months now, and have even taken the research portion offline. This is for two reasons. A proper treatment of the subject would require me to study Sanskrit in depth, but I have other work to do right now that requires my full attention. Unfortunately I cannot save the world from all of the wrong thinking that seems to be so abundant these days. Hopefully reasonable people will understand why I decline to participate any further in these arguments of yours.

#124

“For the fourth time, non-dualism leads to an impossible condition, which is the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity.”

Whether one calls it dual or non-dual, it is like trying to swallow the whole ocean with one gulp. The moment one speaks of the dual, the non-dual rears it’s head. The moment one speaks of the non-dual, the dual rears it’s head. The very idea of duality exists because of it’s polar opposite, they cannot be separated. But the mind is such, that it is determined to project it’s own short-sightedness onto everything. Out of this a thousand and one philosophies have been created, existentialism, materialism, realism, idealism, dualism, non-dualism, atheism, theism, - all the hallucinations of man in the attempt to grasp the Truth.

Existence is neither dual, nor-nondual, it simply transcends all of our words, ideas, and concepts about it. To call it anything whatsoever would be to impose a limitation upon it, and Truth is not something that can be forced into the boundaries of one’s knowledge. Inexpressible beyond the inexpressible, raise even a single word about it, and you immediately fall into error. Neither for or against, without even a hint of discrimination arising, for those who have eyes to see - it stands absolutely naked in front of your own eyes. And yet, for those who understand, there is not even a particle of understanding that can be said about it.

#125

“For practical purposes though, reason and the laws of nature are the only things we can rely on”

Reason is such, that you can bend and manipulate it according to your own prejudices. A million different belief systems have been created out of reason, all who believe that they are being reasonable. Nature is not something that can be understood through it’s “laws”, because if you look in nature, you will find contradictions everywhere. At a scale larger than an atom, the laws of general relativity seem to prevail. At a scale smaller than an atom, all of the ordinary ways of thinking starts becoming irrelevant, the so called “absolute” laws of nature start breaking down.

To use the intellect to understand Truth is like trying to measure the directions of space with a footscale, or trying to walk from the Earth to the moon. But, for those who have been fixated upon everything else except themselves, to be blind to this was impossible to avoid. Because unless you understand your own inner workings, it is going to be impossible to understand how you are using them.

The intellect by nature is too limited an instrument in coming to know the Truth. Truth is not something to be believed, thought about, or philosophized, but it is something to be known through direct perception. Once you come to know of your own original nature, then as a flash of lightning the matter will become crystal clear - although nothing is really attained, nor is there anything that one will find that one is capable of grasping. It is like being absorbed in a bottomless abyss in which there is not even a single hook to grasp onto.

#126

Sri Vidya Yantra 1#2: Second Enclosure - 16 Attractive Powers

1024×768 198 KB

#127

For the fourth time, non-dualism leads to an impossible condition, which is the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity.

I have already answered this argument. There is no contradiction because in non-dualism there is only one substance, and all other substances are epiphenomenas i.e., appearances, illusions, perceptions.

So far enough evidence has been given from quantum mechanics, neuroscience and various philosophers to show that our reality is nothing more than an appearance. An appearance that is meditated by the senses, mind and language. It has also been shown that even in classical Samhya the conclusion that finally is reached is non-dualism.

You have consistently failed to engage with any of this evidence.