Suppose that in
an art auction, there are paintings for sale and we go there just to look at them
but not to buy anything. ?Who enjoys the picture, ? Vivekananda asks, ?the
seller or the seer? The seller is busy with his accounts, computing what his
gain will be, how much profit he will realise on the picture. His brain is full
of that. He is looking at the hammer and watching the bids. He is intent on
learning how fast the bids are rising. That man is enjoying the picture who has
gone there without any intention of buying or selling. He looks at the picture
and enjoys it. So this whole universe is a picture, and when these desires [of
possession] have vanished, we will enjoy the world, and then this buying and
selling and these foolish ideas of possession will be ended.?
Thank you, Anastasia, for this quotation.
Vivekanandas works are full of such bright explaining examples and its a pleasure to read them.
The thing is that on that day I went to many art galleries:)) came back home, grabbed random book… and here this quote:)
CM,
The seller has a duty in life and the seer as well and I always hope that both find some enjoyment, happiness and contentment in their duty.
Yeah but bear in mind Vivekananda had to also physically practice renunication. In order to become a mental renunciant, you need to become a physical renunciant first. Pass grade 1 to go onto grade 2.
Renunciation of the world has for me no echo at all, neither the complete viyoga between Prakriti and Purusha which is presented as the goal in Patanjali Yoga Sutra though I use the YS as guidelines. I see it as some life denying nihilism in the Nietzschean sense (though I could be seen on the side of the idealism with Unterwelt), moreover I doubt that one can really be forever completly cut from Prakriti. I see the manifestation, Prakriti as a field of play of the Divine, some vedic Rishis, some tantrikas and more recently people like Sri Aurobindo perceived it. There is no need to practice outer renunciation for everyone IMO, it depends on the individual, Bhagavad Gita explains it very well with the concept of tyaga.
Philippe
This is true that Prakriti cannot be separated from Purusha. Actually, perhaps this needs to be reframed. In the Samkhya philosophy Prakriti and Purusha are dual substances, by the very virtue that purusha is an observer and prakriti is the observed. This dualism simply cannot be negated, because you cannot be what you observe. What you observe is always outside of you.
This is why we need another word for that ultimate state of existence which has no duality and in which Purusha and Prakriti both exist. Yoga philosophy offers “Ishvara” as the special purusha which is completely pure and never becomes enbodied, as opposed to the ordinary purusha which becomes embodied. This ishvara is the closest in Yoga philosophy to the concept of god. It is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the entire universe.
Yet, even here we have a duality. The duality of god, soul and world. So we need yet another word for the non-dualistic state in which god, soul and world exist. Vedanta philosopy offers “Brahman” Here we have a true non-duality, because Brahman is all that exists and everything else just has relative existence, including ishvara as god.
Now that we have three words to describe the situation more precisely: purusha and prakriti for observer and observed. Ishvara for god as creator, sustainer and destroyer and Brahman for absolute reality we can get rid of some doubts on this matter. So attaining the complete viyoga between purusha and prakriti, does not mean that one has separated oneself from brahman. In fact it is necessary to attain complete viyoga between purusha and prakriti in order to regress back to the primordial stages before creation even happened.
First one realises oneself as Purusha the observer distinct from the observed. This is the realization of Atman.
Then one realises the presence of god as one who is distinct from the soul and the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all. This is the the darshan of ishvara.
Then one realises Brahman as the absolute reality and realises there is no duality at all, it all just one existence.
Renunciation - both outer and inner - is therefore an absolute precondition if you want to get to Brahman-realization. Attaining the complete viyoga between Purusha and Prakriti is necessary.
There is a tendency amongst spiritual seekers to play the game of picking and choosing teachings based on what sounds pleasurable and comfortable. Unfortunately, the truth is the spiritual path is not pleasurable and comfortable, it is painful and uncomfortable. You have to work very hard on this path, make many sacrifices, if you have any hope to attaining even the intermeditate goals.
Renunication is that sacrifice one has to make. Nobody is going to get anywhere whilst living in the world, doing their 1-2 hours of yoga and meditation a day and attending the occasional group meditation and doing Reiki attunement level 1,2 and 3. These people are living a very sorry excuse of a spiritual life, deluding themselves of being spiritual people.
A lot of people hate me because I speak the truth. And the truth is very unpleasent to the ego. Many new-agers fall out with me very quickly. I recently had a debate over dinner at a new-age gathering, and some of them were so upset they walked out 
Well, but still, vanishing in the Ineffable is not appealing to me. I do not think that I am here to escape in some Nirvana. YS and Samkhya have missed something important I think, this is the Shakti, the mother of the worlds. These are mental maps more or less accurate, this is my opinion. There is some truth in the couples Purusha/Prakriti, Ishvara/Shakti, Brahman/Maya. The world seems full of duhkha and it can look horrific seen from the human condition, but there is an Ananda underlying everything in the Cosmos and our souls have been as brave as some Vivekananda to participate in this Adventure of Consciousness. I take a lot of my points of views from Sri Aurobindo as shruti, and I am following his teachings, I am not a sadhak of a book but of the Infinite and I listen to the Veda of the heart. What matters for me is Truth anyway and living according to it.
By the way, I do not care about enlightenment and wonderful realizations, there is a lot of ego and fancies around these ideals. Some are experts to put some spiritual experience in a confused mental box then making a big thing out of it. The Internet is so full of self-claimed “enlightened people” than I wonder at times why the world is still the same. But who cares really ? Personally, all my sadhana is for the Divine and actually is done by the Divine. I do not believe that everyone should be an ascetic to really improve on the spiritual level, it is not because it is unpleasant, I just think that it false though there is some truth behind. I am passionate by my job, happily married and about to be a father, I do not see all of that as hindrances on my spiritual path. On the contrary, it has been very enriching, all life is Yoga and a field of experiences. I also used to think than one had to renounce everything like Buddha but I realize like Sri Aurobindo, the man/men who wrote the BG and others that it was not necessarily needed. Most of yogis have not been renunciants but grihastas, sage Yajnavalkya had even two wives. I like the story of Shukadeva too. It does not mean than one has to marry and live a conventional life neither. Moreover we could discuss about the side-effects on the society of massive renunciation of young smart and spiritually-aware people thus lost for the common human effort.
I think that being a renunciant is even less relevant in today’s world. Conditions are not the same in developed countries. For instance in Europe, life expectancy has increased from around 30 in ancient times to something around 70. There was a time when education was just for a tiny percentage of the population, now education is available for most of people, one can access to a lot of information and benefit a lot from human experiences. In the past, most of people were uneducated and working hard in the fields for a warlord. Being a monk was also a way to escape from this kind of life. We have gained a lot materially, socially and in comfort, a lot of people can have a regular life and benefit from rich experiences though this lifestyle but still have many opportunities to organize their life for contemplation for instance.
Philippe
P.S.: I have started reading a bit more about QM. The field of my studies and teaching in Science are biology and geology.
Phillipe, I think you are really on to something here. But I don’t think that Samkhya and Yoga have missed anything. I think that the teaching is much more subtle and sophisticated than people realize. In a way, you and Surya Deva are both right. It’s true that if you want to “realize Brahman” renunciation is an absolute requirement. But why would anybody want that?
I also agree that in the past, peoples lives were far more difficult. They did not have power or machinery, so everything had to be done through manual labor. Also they did not have modern medicine, so if you got sick or hurt, chances are, you die. Also they did not have modern agriculture or buildings, so they were much more subject to famines and natural disasters. But our culture has proved that the answer is not to meditate yourself out of existence and suffering. The answer is to understand the principles of nature, so that you can use them to alleviate human suffering, however temporary that relief may be.
One important point missing in these scholarly statements is that the spiritual path is transformative. Our mindsets are typically calibrated to a ‘status quo’. We tend to look at progressive happenings with a steadfast location of today, as if that’s going to be real forever.
When we reject enlightenment, it is not taking into account that the journey in that direction is going to change my views, goals, predispositions - everything. So, closer to the final goal it won’t be the same “me”. The dimension of a self-metamorphosis is missing, that makes today’s impossible milestones feasible tomorrow.
The essential theme of Yoga-Sutra is that subtle controls the gross. Pratyahara, is therefore non-attachment of mind with the thinking processes so that the incoming sense impulses are not acted upon. This results in sensing of objects becoming ineffective in inviting physical attention. Thus, a physical non-attachment results.
Experience demonstrates that mental renunciation has to precede the physical renunciation, because this is the only way a sustained relaxed indifference is created. Then it doesn’t matter whether you are a householder or a sanyasi.
Let me just clarify one thing. I don’t reject enlightenment. I reject the idea that enlightenment is a self-serving means to avoid the suffering that is inherent in life.
Borrowing from the original post “…and when these desires [of
possession] have vanished, we will enjoy the world, and then this buying and
selling and these foolish ideas of possession will be ended.”
I think the key words here are “desires of possession”. What does that mean, that we should have no possession? I don’t think so. I think it means we need to get rid of our greed and attachments, aversions, addictions, obsessions of all kinds.
Also notice “we will enjoy the world” … enjoy it, not leave it behind in our dust.
I am entitled to my opinion. I agree that these teachings are more subtle than what a lot of people realize. I see in France, hardly any Yoga teacher has studied classical commentaries of Yoga Sutra from Vyasa, Vijnabhikshu, Vacaspati Mishra, King Bhoja and others or commentaries about Samkhya from Aniruddha, Vijnanabhikshu aso. Even in India some of these texts can be difficult to get, yet I think that they are needed to study deeply as these shastras have been written a long time ago and for many of us in another culture though I think that it is not mandatory to evolve spiritually. These texts/shastras can be seen as bearing a universal touch, but people adapt often them in a decontextualized way without lucidity or without admitting it. I think that it is a matter of honesty, moreover how many Yoga teachers teaching Yoga Sutra really practise themselves for kaivalya, seen as a complete viyoga, the end of the body-mind complex. For instance as far as I know even a famous yogi Krishnamacharya, a devout vaishnava from the Ramanuja’s theist Vishishta advaita tradition admitted that he differed at times with things exposed in YS. I for one am interested in these texts mainly for the methodology, as guidelines, mirrors for self-knowledge, much less for the metaphysics. So I have studied them, and I carry on studying them, and I know that there is no concept such as Shakti. When I talk about Yoga, this is Yoga as exposed by Patanjali in YS, it is not necessarily true if we take into account other texts or certain traditions.
Philippe
P.S.: I have received also explanations from oral transmission.
I think that it is a matter of honesty
I have reached exactly the same conclusion.
I know that there is no concept such as Shakti
That is true, there is no explicit mention of Shakti in the YS. I have a couple of theories on that. The first is that Patanjali mostly follows the Samkhya tradition, which seeks to explain the working of the natural world in a philosophical rather than religious way. The second is that Shakti is a religious representation of the Samkhya principle of Prakriti. We need to keep in mind that the YS is generally not original thought, but a compilation of previously existing concepts in a systematic way. Practices like Kundalini come under the heading of Dhyana. Practices in the Upanishads which are called Dhyana generally involve some form of visualization. Samadhi is distinguished from Dhyana in that visualization is not practiced.
On the other hand, Samkhya literature defines Dhyana as cessation of raga (passion), which kind of reinforces the idea of different and competing or conflicting traditions, which may have originated from different cultures.
When you talk about ancient times you are talking about ancient Europe, not ancient India. It is an easy mistake to make to think that in ancient times all parts of the world were in similar conditions, but this is not true at all.
Ancient India was more developed than India is developed today and as developed as Europe is developed today. Food and resources were abundant and the climate was warm and tropical. There were hospitals, clinics and a full comprehensive healthcare system including surgery and dentistry and a culture of hygenie and physical health through Yoga and meditation. There were sanitation systems in place to collect sewage and dispose of waste. Each home had a bathroom, a toilet. A kitchen with oven. There were universities to study a wide range of subjects logic, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, arts, politics and economics and a standardized system of units and language. The society was governed by a republic like democracy.
It is impossible to say what the life expectancy of people living in ancient India during that time was like, but from the evidence we have from foreign accounts of life in ancient India, ancient Indians were healthy, strong and intelligent. The Sanskrit texts mention 100 years as the ideal life span.
Knowing what ancient Indian society was like puts into context how developed the traditions in that society were and how they are not in any way lesser developed than modern society. Ayurveda, Sanskrit, Vedanta and Yoga still are applicable today, in fact no modern counterpart exists to match them. So we cannot actually claim to know more today, when in fact it is clear we know less. The way spirituality was practiced in Vedic times is the way spirituality is to be practiced today, and how it will be practiced tomorrow as well. The ageless wisdom is called as such because it never changes.
The mind of the ancient man living in ancient india is no different to the mind of the modern man. It is still the same chitt, it is still overruled by vrittis and still to achivem the pure mind the vrittis have to be stilled. And still the best method we know today to do that are Yoga.
If it was enough just to live morally in the world and practice mental renunication then Patanjali would have only described two limbs: yama and niyamas. No, of course that is not enough. The mind requires intense and dedicated physical practice in order to tame it, and this requires years of dedicated practice day in and day out. About 10 hours of meditation, pranayama a day.
The sit down practice of meditation is mandatory because this is where the training takes place. You cannot still and meditate with your eyes open, going about your daily tasks and reacting to the hustle and the bustle and the challenges of wordly life. The precondition to dhyana is pratyhara, and this only takes place when the senses have been withdrawn completely into the mind. Then one begins to introvert into the mind and begins to penetrate through its layers.
In day to day life you cannot do that, because you need the senses to live.
The continual intense practice of meditation will raise the level consciousness and make the mind more and more alert. Ones consciousness will grow very much like a muscle does after it is subject to stress during a work out, it grows back even stronger and bigger. Spiritual training is no different to physical training. If you are are serious about the fitness of your physical body to bring it to professional athletic level, you need to dedicate your life to training regularly at the gym, regulating your diet and lifestyle. Similarly, if you are serious about the fitness of your consciosuness and want to bring it to professional enlightenment level, you need to dedicate your entire life to spiritual training, practicing hours of meditation, pranayama a day, eating a sattvic diet and practicing a sattvic lifestyle. No pain, no gain. Those who are not putting in the effort are not going to get results. They can rationalize, makes excuses and delude themselves all they want that they can get by without the pain.
I do not know of a single master who reached enlightenment without physical renunciation.
I do not have time to check in details all your claims about ancient India though I am aware that India was a wealthy and highly civilized place before muslim invasions though unfortunately not strong enough to face them. But it said that many Rishis were householders. More recently Ramakrishna was married and he placed Nagmahasaya at the same level of some disciples who were renunciants.
Nowhere it is written in YS to lead such an ascetic life such as spending 10 hours a day in sitting meditation, pranayama and other exercises of this style, nor in the classical commentaries I read and the oral teachings I received. Dharana, dhyana, samadhi are first defined as states of mind and pratyahara is a consequence of dharana in YS cf. YS II-53-54. It is placed before only because the 8 limbs are classified from the more external to the more internal.
I think that you underestimate the power of karma and bhakti yogas, they make wonder.
You seem to consider a lot of what you state as universal and eternal truths and I wish you all the best if you want to go for such a lifestyle to check for yourself. In all cases, I respect it a lot.
Philippe
Hi to all you guys in the forum.feel free to contact me Im all about growing and evolving please since this is a forum and people have the tendency to fight with words let me tell you guys that yoga is very manly and that theoretical quarrels wont bring you salvation or freedom and thats the mark of a girly characters please lets stop fighting and arguing and lets do more practical work and help each other to conquer the enemy within ,after all we only got one enemy ourselves (that by the way is for the semiawakend the rest still got the enemy within and the enemy outside).I’m currently leaving in San Diego California and I’m looking for a real guru or someone that want to point me the way.Someone that is not asking for money cause thats nasty stuff that should not relate to yoga even do I understand that people have to eat.any body know the asanas and pranayamas well and follows Patanjali system in a traditional and strict way I need help to correct my practice.One more time Im not here to play who is the wiser man or posing I need some help in perfecting my practice if someone want to exchange philosophical points of views thats fine but after all theory wont make you better than a monkey.And I read quit a few classics to.In every book the hindus recommend the usage of a guru and I been thinking that the idea is a little bit manipulative after all there is so many books on the subject and videos in the net .why do we need a guru? to make him feel important? that sounds like a business or cult. but anyways thats what the higher authorities recommend Anybody wants to expose hes ideas about and bring practical solutions .Where is the guru? I already went to the vedanta temple closes to my place and they seem to play heads games like they want you to show are the litle vedanta one on one of sundays morning well what about if you know what you want already and all you need is a simple guidance in your asanas and pranayamas practices.I dont like submission to any man after all we all here trying to attain the same freedom.
Ancient India has a 10,000 year known history. The Muslim occupation period is therefore relatively very recent. This happened during the weakest phase of India, where India’s material aspect had been undermined by Buddhism, especially it defenses. Otherwise, it is clear to see that even during the invasion of Alexandra the great, how powerful the Indian military was. Alexandra’s army was forced to retreat when faced by its towering might. During the high period of India’s history India was an indomitable country, nobody could invade it, on the contrary India had expanded its influence across the world, colonizing Indonesia, Burma, Java, Thailand, Cambodia, Americas and Europe. This is the great period of Aryan expansion in the world.
The point in pointing this out is that modernity does not apply to the entire world, as India very much was a modern country even 5000 years ago. Modernity is a Western phenomenon and refers to the modernization and civiliizing of Europe. Other places in the world were already modernized long before Europe. This is why we should not pretend we are anymore intellectually advanced today overall than we were in the past. The spiritual sciences discovered in ancient India are just as true for today, as they were in the past.
The human body has not evolved much at all from 5000 years to to the 21st century. It still very much constituted the same. Hence, why 5000 years old mind-body sciences of India like Yoga still works today. If that was not true, it would not become a multi-billion dollar industry.
No in the YS it does not say that one should meditate for 10 hours a day sitting in meditation, because the YS only with the generals and not the specifics. But it is stated clearly in the YS that you need to be doing Yoga with single minded dedication. The YS is not written for householders, it is written for yogis dedicated to the practice of Yoga.
YS 1.1: Atha Yoganusasanam
- Now, at this auspicious time, begins the teachings of the sacred science of Yoga.
Almost all commentaters on this sutra have pointed out that the first sutra indicates a progression and initiation into Yoga. The individual is now ready after completing preliminaries of life to start the journey of Yoga. It is not written for the modern 21st century Westerner who wants to do Yoga 1-2 hours a day and do other things on the side. It is written for serious yogis who want enlightenment. This science was only taught to people who were initiated by the guru, not to anybody.
Early on Patanjali explains exactly how Yoga is to be done:
YS 1.12: Abhyasa varigyabhyam tannirodhah
- Sustained practice and detachment are the means to still the vrittis in the mind
Then Patanjali gives a definition on what practice is:
YS: 1.13: Tatra sthitau yatnah abhyasah
- Sustained practice is the steadfast effort to still the vrittis in the mind
YS: 1.14: sa tu dirghkala nairantaraya satkara asevitah drdabhumih
- This, practice sustained for a long time, uninterupted, with total dedication and performed assiduously is the firm foundation to still the vrittis in the mind.
So there is no ambiguity here that Patanjali means total, single-minded dedication to practice, practiced for a long time, uninterrupted. He does not say, practice a bit in the day, then go out and do other things(watch tv, have sex, a pint with your friends, go the cinema, do the household chores) Like I said, Patanjali is addressing a serious student of Yoga who has accepted Yoga as their life path. Yoga is not a hobby that the 21st century Westerner has turned it into.
Patanjali further makes further remarks on practice:
YS 1.20: sraddha, virya smriti samadhiprajna purvakhah itaresam
- Practice must be pursued with reverence, trust, vigour and total absorption to break spiritual complacency
YS 1.21: tivrasamveganam asannah
- The goal is near for those who are supremely vigorous and intense in their practice.
YS 1.22: mrdu madhya adhimatravat tatrah api visesah
- There are differences between those who are mild, average and intense in their practice
The word Patanjali uses gives the give away. He uses the word samvega, which is a technical word like samyama, meaning perfect speed. Meaning to say if you are incredibly intense in your practice and maintain that speed of practice the goal is not far. When he distinguishes other grades of practice mild, average and intense, he is not at all referring to the 21st century Westerner doing their 1-2 hours meditation a day. He is referring to students of Yoga who have accepted Yoga as their life.
Thus Patanjali makes it very clear in the very first chapter of the YS itself that you need absolute dedication to the path, if you want to attain the goal of Yoga, even the intermeditate goals. Patanjali would not have at all tolerated the 21st century Westerner insisting they are practicing spirituality by doing their 1-2 hours yoga and meditation a day(most don’t do daily practice, but weekly practice) and insisting it is sufficient just because they are modern. He probably would have laughed out loud.
Ancient India was more developed than India is developed today and as developed as Europe is developed today.
A case of overactive imagination I’m afraid.