Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#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.

#128

Reason is such, that you can bend and manipulate it according to your own prejudices.

This is not true, if a conclusion is a reasonable then it is guaranteed by the premises. It is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Such as All A’s are B’s, C is a A, therefore C is a B. This can be: all things which are born are perishable, the body is a thing which is born, therefore the body is perishable.

I have not had any direct experiences of the the truth, but I don’t need to to know the truth, because reason has already told me the truth. Jnana Yoga is considered a valid form of Yoga.

#129

@Amir

This is my reply.

#130

Surya Deva…a must practice for you is Jangama dhyana…finally found its name…

#131

Yes, that’s a good technique.

I recall Amir putting a name to this practice and i found this ; the following excerpts are taken from wilikpedia .

"The Jangama dhyana technique is as follows:

Sit, closing the eyes.
Concentrate the mind and sight in between eyebrows.
Keep watching there by focusing the attention.
Do not repeat any mantra or name.
Do not imagine anything.
Do not open eyes until the duration of meditation is over.“Sit, closing the eyes.
Concentrate the mind and sight in between eyebrows.
Keep watching there by focusing the attention.
Do not repeat any mantra or name.
Do not imagine anything.
Do not open eyes until the duration of meditation is over.”

             ---

Also this is from the Gita:-

“Shutting off sense
From what is outward,
Fixing the gaze
At the root of the eye-brows,
Checking the breath-stream
In and outgoing
Within the nostrils,
Holding the senses,
Holding the intellect,
Thrusts fear aside,
Thrusts aside anger
And puts off desire:
Truly that man
Is made free for ever”

My own Notes BTW below: -

Personally i’m not too confident currently in my own practice right now though i’m sure it can happen about the eyes going exactly & equally boss-eyed(sambhavi) but the awareness yes.That’s what i just started with recently.You want equalisation and to keep it subtle i beleive so these kind of manouvres occur almost automotically, but not quite…like on the edge, because the nervous system is wired that way… to open up gradually…steadily

I just started off by placing my awareness at ajna… that is between the eyebrows and then noting the resultant sensations but you want a relaxed body/mind state and the thoughtless mind i guess might help too.

#132

Also when you open ajna, i.e get more opening in there, then you get or become better at intuiting the other chakras , their relative location and the sensing part should become sharper clearer etc,and thus opening them up. They do call it the command or control centre after all…or something like that.

The approach i’m foolowing i think you get or work on getting mild awakening in each chakra first as a prepration for kundalini rising and proper awakening. I know these are just labels… but you could call this a laya-based kundalini yoga.

P.S Regarding the OP and the thread:- Sorry to go OT btw.

#133

This is my last post in this thread. I withdraw from the forum because there is too much vulgar calling names and hostile behaviour, which has nothing to do with Yoga whatsoever.