You can call it a science in the sense that it is a methodological discipline, but yoga is a religious science, not a secular one. Unless you understand yoga to be nothing more than a method to improve your posture, health, psychology, breath, control of mind/body. Basically that’s what modern yoga deals with and as far as purely secular interpretations of yoga can go.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;61481]You can call it a science in the sense that it is a methodological discipline, but yoga is a religious science, not a secular one. Unless you understand yoga to be nothing more than a method to improve your posture, health, psychology, breath, control of mind/body. Basically that’s what modern yoga deals with and as far as secular interpretations of yoga go.[/QUOTE]
A science for the expansion of consciousness with methodology leading to acute awareness which requires no religion or tradition else the path will be contaminated with preconceived illusions of what one wants to see instead of uncovering Truth.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;61486]A science for the expansion of consciousness with methodology leading to acute awareness which requires no religion or tradition else the path will be contaminated with preconceived illusions of what one wants to see instead of uncovering Truth.[/QUOTE]
Your preconceived notions are that you want to expand your conciousness and uncover the truth. These are also preconceived notions. You have at least some level of faith that yoga will accomplish any of this. You are also assigning some sort of value to it, otherwise you would not spend your time with this discipline.
Action can also be an article of ones scientific conviction. There is a TV program called Brainiacs where some some mad cap science geeks put the laws of physics to the test in extreme ways that could kill them if the laws went wrong! Fortunately, nobody has yet died because obviously the laws are not wrong.
However, there is obvious a tradition behind this scientific conviction which these Brainiacs have studied enough to understand what they are doing. Likewise, nobody starts an activity to expand their consciousness if they do not have faith in such a thing being possible.
But all faith is bad from my point of view. I am not dedicating so many years of my life to Yoga out of faith, but out of scientific conviction.
But all faith is bad from my point of view. I am not dedicating so many years of my life to Yoga out of faith, but out of scientific conviction.
No, faith is an important element in any religion even in Buddhism and Hinduism. Some neo-Hindus have tried to give pseudo-rational justifications for religious practices. Like the Arya Samajis, you’ll ask them, why do you do agnihotra, they’ll say, it’s to purify the air. Next thing you know, they’ll say they wear their yajnopavita to scratch their backs. Even a yogi needs to have faith, he can’t find validation for kaivalya in any scientific journal. Secular justifications for religious practices can only go so far.
In santana dharma sharadda is important, not what Abrahamics call faith. Shradda is is not the same as faith, it is having firm conviction in something. I have firm conviction in the conclusions of Samkhya just as a scientist has firm conviction in E=mc^2. The predicate of E=mc^2 is that if you travel towards the speed of light, mass will become infinite. Nobody has of course travelled at the speed of light to confirm this predicate, but scientific conviction leads us to conclude this. Similarly, I have not reached samadhi in meditation, but I have scientific conviction in Samkhya to conclude that samadhi is really possible.
Faith is a disease of the mind from my perspective. Santana dharma is not about beliefs, theories and hypothesis - it is about what is real and actual. If you believe something to be true it is because you don’t know it is true. Knowing and believing is what sets Vedic dharma and Abrahamic religion apart.
There are things that cannot be known through science or philosophy and are dealt with in the vedas. Faith is necessary for any religious practicioner including a yogi. A desire to validate everything through (pseudo-)science can be a sign of lack of confidence in the metaphysics of your religion. If you really relied on scientific evidence alone, you would have to be agnostic about many teachings of religion, no matter what religion you follow. That doesn’t mean to reject science, but to admit that science and philosophy have its limitations.
Regarding Yogananda
According to his own writings, Babaji selected him to go to the West and show the unity
of Christianity and Hinduism.
He loved his mother country but did not suffer of nationalsim.
He did not confess to anybody on this forum ulterior motives.
His confessed and only motive was his love of God.
[QUOTE=oak333;61533]Regarding Yogananda
According to his own writings, Babaji selected him to go to the West and show the unity
of Christianity and Hinduism.
He loved his mother country but did not suffer of nationalsim.
He did not confess to anybody on this forum ulterior motives.
His confessed and only motive was his love of God.[/QUOTE]
He didn’t have ulterior motives, he was just a confused person.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;61532]There are things that cannot be known through science or philosophy and are dealt with in the vedas. Faith is necessary for any religious practicioner including a yogi. A desire to validate everything through (pseudo-)science can be a sign of lack of confidence in the metaphysics of your religion. If you really relied on scientific evidence alone, you would have to be agnostic about many teachings of religion, no matter what religion you follow. That doesn’t mean to reject science, but to admit that science and philosophy have its limitations.[/QUOTE]
I think when you say science you mean something very different than what I understand by science. I understand science from the dharma categorical framework - vidya. Indeed in dharma even god is a subject of science: brahma vidya.
I have conviction in brahma vidya because I understand the metaphysics. I have no faith, because I know brahman is real. Similarly, I have no faith in atman, karma, reincarnation or yoga - because I know it is real.
Faith for me is disease of the mind because it is the opposite of knowledge. Knowledge can be realised, but faith can or cannot be realised. Faith cannot be tested and this is why it is dangerous, because anybody can say anything they want, such as “Jews are subhuman” or “God hates the pagans”
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;61487]Your preconceived notions are that you want to expand your conciousness and uncover the truth. These are also preconceived notions. You have at least some level of faith that yoga will accomplish any of this. You are also assigning some sort of value to it, otherwise you would not spend your time with this discipline.[/QUOTE]
I somewhat agree since there must be an inner desire fueling effort to explore this approach however yogic sciences ask me to inquire, experience and evaluate honestly any progress, benefits or conclusions, similar to a scientific approach. Eventually even these notions must be let go since words, images and thoughts fall short of direct experience. A lifetime much too short to stumble upon this; thankfully this spirituality emerged out of historic India otherwise more suffering would exist.
Yes, eventually you will directly experience it (if you follow the path). But for now it’s just wishful thinking to say you can cross the river without any raft.
Yoga is a well proven, 7000+ year old vehicle to help one on the path of life whether it a river, ocean, mountain, valley or a meadow of illusions.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;61549]Yoga is a well proven, 7000+ year old vehicle to help one on the path of life whether it a river, ocean, mountain, valley or a meadow of illusions.[/QUOTE]
Just be careful when you say well proven, this is not so in the secular scientific sense of the word. I am a Hindu, so I don’t really care, but there are people who have resistence towards any religious practice if there’s no (pseudo-)scientific justification for it.
[QUOTE=David;61264]Is there really such a difference between the Holy Trinity and the Trimurti? Or is the only real difference the story and interpretation has changed a little over time thanks to the human condition.[/QUOTE]
Dear Friend:
The Holiest trinity would be the confluence of three [B][I]“gunas”[/I][/B] viz. [I][B]raja, sattwa[/B][/I] and [I][B]tama.[/B][/I] They pervade all creation. They transcend all religions.
[I][B]Aum Tat Sat !![/B][/I]
anand
[QUOTE=Anand Kulkarni;61560]Dear Friend:
The Holiest trinity would be the confluence of three [B][I]“gunas”[/I][/B] viz. [I][B]raja, sattwa[/B][/I] and [I][B]tama.[/B][/I] They pervade all creation. They transcend all religions.
[I][B]Aum Tat Sat !![/B][/I]
anand[/QUOTE]
From a [U]Hindu[/U] standpoint, you might be right. 
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;61561]From a [U]Hindu[/U] standpoint, you might be right. ;)[/QUOTE]
Dear Friend:
What is “Hindu” about “creating” “sustaining” and “dissolving”? These processes are for anyone to observe and conclude.
regards, anand
[QUOTE=Anand Kulkarni;61562]Dear Friend:
What is “Hindu” about “creating” “sustaining” and “dissolving”? These processes are for anyone to observe and conclude.
regards, anand[/QUOTE]
Now you are generalising a lot, but the meaning of the pranava and of the gunas are detailed with all its nuances in the Hindu scriptures. When you are taking about the gunas, like in your last post, you should know that you are talking about Hindu philosophy (sankhya in particular). It is really simple. You are talking about the worldview of the Hindus which may or may not be accepted outside of this religion. When we are talking about the laws of relativity and its properties and use, nobody denies that we are talking about science, in particular physics.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;61563]Now you are generalising a lot, but the meaning of the pranava and of the gunas are detailed with all its nuances in the Hindu scriptures. When you are taking about the gunas, like in your last post, you should know that you are talking about Hindu philosophy (sankhya in particular). It is really simple. You are talking about the worldview of the Hindus which may or may not be accepted outside of this religion. When we are talking about the laws of relativity and its properties and use, nobody denies that we are talking about science, in particular physics, is it not so?[/QUOTE]
Dear Friend:
Yes, I am generalising and being all-encompassing.
The World as ONE FAMILY is a splendid truth indeed. Let all move up and experience it.
regards, anand
Yes, I am generalising and being all-encompassing.
But you shouldn’t be confused. There are other worldviews that don’t accept or deal with these Hindu ideas.