Whos fault

I did not mean to say false ego. I meant EGO. Your interpretation of ego is not correct. According to Patanjali, “whenever we are solely identified with our ego, we bind ourselves to things that do not have permanent reality.” (attachments) Ego wants control. The ego attempts to assert ownership through concepts of me, I and mine. This is not the true self, not who we truly are. It is your social mask. Arrogance inflates the ego and the ego overshadows the spirit. You can never reach true enlightenment while clinging to self or ego. Yoga ( 8 fold path) increases your awareness and transforms from ego to self.

So am I correct in assuming that you have asserted your ego to win the philosophical debate? If logic is correct, and I believe it is, your ego is in control. You are doing nothing but feeding your ego trying to “win” an argument. What you could be doing is using your knowledge to help others who are trapped within their own ego.

You are doing nothing but feeding your ego trying to “win” an argument

And then what is this lotusgirl, “Your interpretation of ego is not correct” Then you provide me evidence from Patanjali. So what is this if not you trying to win an argument. You are making an absolute statement here by categorically telling me I am wrong. How is this any different to me showing you are categorically wrong? It is not.

The truth is relativism never works out. As soon as you use language to make any statement you are automatically engaging in logic and then will have to defend your position. Even the Jains could not break away from this.

As a matter of fact you are wrong. You have a complete wrong understanding of Patanjali’s philosophy because you are looking at second-hand English translations, rather then the original Sanskrit. The word ego means “self” or “sense of self” in English it is cognate with the word Atman, Purusha, or drastuh in Sanskrit meaning “self, witness, pure consciousness” The word false-ego in English means a false self or a sense of self. This is cognate with the word ahamkara(I-maker) which means a construction of self which is not real.

So you are blatantly wrong that there is no EGO admitted in Yoga. If ego is taken to mean self then the ego is at the very core of Yoga philosophy because it is all about self-realization.

You cannot beat me on my turf. You know about Yoga philosophy from cursory reading of English translations. I know it directly from critical reading of the primary sources in their language of Sanskrit.

No my friend, it is you who misunderstand. Not only do you misunderstand ego, but also yoga philosophy is much more than just "self-realization. There is no argument to win. My purpose was to point out your misunderstandings hoping you will research.

And as far as your last paragraph. Do not insult my intelligence and don’t assume I read fluffy books. It was a condescending statement. BTW, what are your credentials? Curious to know.

but also yoga philosophy is much more than just "self-realization.

All of the Yoga traditions and masters disagree with you. In fact the great Patanjali himself disagrees with you:

B.K.S Iyengar, Light on Yoga Sutras:

1.1 Now begins instruction in yoga.
1.2 Yoga is the restraint of the modifications of the mind.
1.3 Then the Seer is established in his own essential nature.
1.4 Otherwise, there is self-identification with the mental modifications.

The entire Yoga tradition is centred on only one thing and one thing only: The realization of self: Atman jnana(knowledge of self). There is no goal higher than this. Read the Upanishads and you will see this repeat over and over again like a broken record player(know the self)

This is what makes Hinduism Hinduism. It accepts the doctrine of Atman. This is why the greatest Hindu and Yoga masters of the 20th century centre their entire mission around the self. Swami Yogananda’s organization is called the, “Self realization fellowship” the great spiritual teaching of Ramana Maharishi is called, “Self-inquiry”(Atman vichara)

I am sorry but you are so wrong that the word wrong somehow seems impotent to describe how wrong you are. Somebody who does not understand this about Yoga clearly does not understand Yoga and if they are honest enough with themselves, they need to immediately go back to basics. Start with the Yoga sutras :wink:

To digress from the surya bashing ,although he does seem to be fine , to add my bit, from my understanding of buddhist thought and tantric thought (I know this is a yoga forum) do they not say that people with the most challenging conditions have the greatest conditions and motivation for movement to a place of realisation and full potential , could it not be disempowering to go against this .Does not the tibetan wheel of life portray the path to nirvana coming from the hell realms ? Are these people ignoramuses or great practitioners?
Would Ramakrishna not say it was all perfect and always had been ,did he not claim to hold onto some small vestage of ego , he called this “ripe ego” illumined by the divine ,he held onto this so he could still interact with the world,so could ego not have some place in yoga ? I would have thought without ego we would not need to practice yoga , unless we did so for the delight.
It seems there are many teachings on offer some seemingly contradictory and challenging but different practices and teachings for different temperaments ie according to ones nature.
I thank Ma for these jewells on offer without which I would be lost
yours in yoga

The reason people (on a more spiritual path) study yoga is to release the ego mind and achieve enlightenment. One must restrain the ego mind for pure “soul awareness” to be possible. And according to Patanjali there are 5 obstacles (Kleshas) on the path to yoga. All have to to with releasing ego. Maybe we are mincing words here. I view ego as having attachments. Your true self is a self without attachments or ego. Even what I’ve read of Jnana yoga, they talk about destroying the ego.

Never tell me I don’t understand yoga. This is not a good way to discuss or open up dialogue about yoga. Very disappointing as I am new to this forum.

Again I ask you what your credentials are? As far as I’m concerned you are acting like a grade school bully. Yoga has no room for this. My thoughts and prayers are with you on your journey.

Nope, Patanjali does not say yoga is to release the ego. This is what Patanjali says:

Yoga Chitt Vritti Nirodha

Word for Word:

Yoga: The science of complete and absolute integration and actualization of the highest potential
Chitt: The field of consciousness
Vritti: The modifications, fluctuations, waves, whirlpools, fragments
Nirodha: The complete release and dissolution of the imprisoning restraints

The science of complete integration and actualization of the highest potential is the complete releasing and dissolution of of the imprisoning modifications and fluctuations of the consciousness field back into the consciousness field.

Tada drastuh svarupe avasthanam

Word for word:

Tada: Then, at that time
Drastuh: The witness, the observer, the self
Svarupe: The essential form, the true form
Avasthanam: Rests in, abides in, resides in

Then, when the above is accomplished, the self which is the witnessing/observing consciousness will rest in its true and essential form.

This is the only time Patanjali gives any definition of Yoga, and it sure isn’t, “Yoga is to release the ego mind and achieve enlightemnent” :wink:

Next time look at the Sanskrit.

Again I ask you what your credentials are?

I am a learned Hindu(this means I have studied the Vedas, Upanishads, darshanas, shastras, vedangas, itihas, upa-vedas) and we are talking about a Hindu text here from the philosophical schools of Hinduism. I have been born and brought up in Hindu culture. I don’t need anymore credentials.

Excuse me, I never said that was from Patanjali. The Kleshas were attributed to Patanjali.
And again, you are not a very good listener. I said we may be mincing words with ego and self.

Again what are your credentials?

Ah, you are now embarrasing yourself. Patanjali is the founder, codifier and the systematizer of the science of Yoga. Prior to Patanjali yoga existed only in fragments and techniques. Patanjali brought all of this together and turned it into full science replete with the theory and practice(although to really understand the theory more thorougly you need to look Samkhya) Patanjali’s classical work on Yoga is so complete and powerful that it still is the most authoratative text on Yoga to this very day and widely referenced by all Yoga schools, heck even more modern transpersonal psychology. He is considered a genius of Yoga, even elevated to a mahaavatar of Vishnu. His credibility is second to none. He provides the complete meta-structure or framework on which all of Yoga research is based on.

I know when I am talking to somebody who is completely out of their depth. If you want to learn something you should listen, else I am not going to waste my time.

Here is a free lesson to familiarize yourself with the great scientists of Hinduism.

There has been no greater scientist of linguistics than Panini
There has been no greater scientist of surgery than Sushruta
There has been no greater scientist of metaphysics than Kapila
There has been no greater scientist of logic than Gotama
There has been no greater scientist of music theory than Pingala
There has been no greater scientist of physics than Kananda
There has been no greater scientist of Yoga than Patanjali
There has been no greater scientist of poetry than Vyaasa.

These men stand at the very heights of science. They are still widely studied even today. They all come from a superhuman civilisation of the Vedic times.
Each of these men is worth like thousands of years of development by several generations. I bow before such great geniuses.

in response to Surya’s request several posts back, I offer a definition of humility:

To bow before those whom one does not consider to be great geniuses; to acknowledge that which is precious in each creature.

[QUOTE=Techne;33379]in response to Surya’s request several posts back, I offer a definition of humility:

To bow before those whom one does not consider to be great geniuses; to acknowledge that which is precious in each creature.[/QUOTE]

This is absurd. This means the adult should bow before the child; the teacher should bow before his student; the human should bow before the insect.

No humility is about bowing before those who are greater than you and aspiring to become as great as them.

I recognise the divine potential in every being(including the insect) but one does not award potential, one awards merit.

If a god were to appear before you now you will automatically bow before them. In fact why go as high as a god. Do we not bow before our gurus and masters?

This is the true definition of humility and the Hindus understood this very well. It is said in Hinduism if you do not know something and you want to know then bow before that person who knows. If I wanted to know Relativity I would bow before Einstein.

To Surya Deva-
If you have done enough reading outside of the ancient texts you will find there are many meanings of yoga. Patanjali is but one, albeit a great one. And I disagree with your interpretation of 1.4 of the Sutras. According to what I was taught in teacher training (my guru is Hindu and from India) that particular sutras meaning is that EGO is the central block to self-realization. This curriculum was approved by the Yoga Alliance.

While you’re at it read about the Branches of Avidya. The first is Asmita or Ego. And quoting T.K.V. Desikachar in his book The Heart Of Yoga Page 11, "The four branches of avidya, singly or together, cloud our perception.

I really want to understand where you are coming from and specify where your interpretations of the sutras come from. Not in a confrontational manner please. And please no name calling either.

Your teacher is explaining it to you in the language you will understand. The entire theory of practice of Yoga is based on Samkhya and Patanjali’s Yogasutras. All of the later Yogic texts are expansions on the basic framework laid down by Kapila and Patanjali(founders and codifiers of Samkhya and Yoga respectively) Even the Hatha Yoga Pradipika is a supplemenary text.

You need to read the Samkhyakarika for a start(the branches of avidya are mentioned within them by the way with even more further classification)

The superficial understanding is indeed that the ego is the block of self-realization but you need to understand what the ego is in Samkhya-Yoga philosophy.

Let’s begin from the start:

In the beginning all of prakriti(nature/matter) is in an absolute state of potential and consists of three modalities called the three gunas: expansion, contraction and stillness. These are in absolute equlibrium and thus prakriti is a complete state of dormancy. This state of Prakriti is known as moolaprakriti(quantum or root matter) This is then an event called spandana when the Purusha(witness, observer, self) simply observes prakriti and this creates a massive vibration which shakes up the gunas at a very sudden and rapid rate(this initial vibration is known pranava or the sound of OM) the very first guna that dominates is rajas(expansion) and there is a very sudden expansion of matter and then both sattva and tamas(stilness and contraction) begin to dominate over rajas and as a result the rate of expansion is dampened and the expansion of the universe(bramananda) slows down, eventually tamas(contraction) will dominate and and the universe will contract and go back to the state of moolaprakriti.

Do you follow so far? The initial displacement of prakriti caused by the observation by purusha causes the gunas to oscillate at a rapid frequency and modulate in various ways. These modulations then go onto produce various evolutes and first evolute is not any kind of physical matter at all it is mahat or buddhi or pure intelligence(cosmic intelligence) and it made of the impulses of prana of which there are 5 types: prana, apana, vyana, udana, and samana. This pure intelligence then instantly divided into infinite units or buddhis called ahamkaras(constructed egos made out of pranic impulses)(jivatmans) which are living sparks. The very act of this division causes the entire field of prakriti to be artifically split into two divisions subjective and objective(there was no spilt prior to this) because of the living sparks are referencing it. This leads to the development of manas(mind), jnanaindriyas(sense organs) and karmaindras(motor organs) on the subjective side(false subjectivity) and tanmatras(sensory elements) and mahabhuttas(5 physical elements) on the objective side(false objectivity).

So the superficial understanding is it is the ahamkara(false ego) that is the central block to self realization. However, the ahamkara itself is made up pranic impulse(the intelligence) and this in turn as just vibrational modulations of the gunas at the very core of quantum or root matter. This is the detailed understanding.

This is why Patanjali does not define Yoga as the dissolution of the ego but rather the dissolution of the vritti activity which he explains to be the gunas modulations within the consciousness field.

Your Hindu guru will be able to explain this to you if you ask him for the proper detailed explanation. Many Hindus gurus do not want to confuse their Western students with the highly technical Sanskrit descriptions so they give them something they can understand. Unfortunately, invariably, this leads to misunderstanding.

You will never lose your self I can gaurantee that now. However what you will lose are the limitations that your is self identified with at his moment. When you lose those limitations you will have a completely free and infinitely expanded self.

Just to add: There a very few Hindus as learned as me that can give you such a precise explanation. I am one of the most knowledable Hindus out there. Even Hindu Phd’s and priests are impressed with the depth and breadth of my knowledge, and Hindus I meet are in awe of how much I know. This is all thanks to the extensive jnana yoga sadhana I have done. Like I said before I am a very powerful Jnana yogi. I have learned by studying the works of the greatest(Kapila, Sankara,Swami Krishnananda, Swami Dayananda, Swami Vivekanda and many other greats)

It may seem to be very pedantic to demand such hair splitting accuracy of terms, but the more precise you can be(as every scientist will know) the less the room for error and distortion. The biggest failing of Western philosophy and religion has been the extreme ambiguity and lack of precision with words. Fortunately, in the Vedic world the dangers of ambiguity was recognised and this is why Sanskrit was created. There is still no language in the world that is a match for Sanskrit.

Stick to the Sanskrit when you read the classical works. English translations will destroy the meaning.

There is no science higher than Vedic science. It is the science of a superhuman civilisation. Advanced
planets in our universe are using Vedic science.

Poor Surya. Yoga has taken your ability to socialize properly, and made you very neurotic. You must be very lonely. I genuinely feel for you.

[QUOTE=Brother Neil;32994]Kind of along the lines of citymonks thread of dealing with difficult people. So if we take the difficult person she is referring to as an example, whos fault is it that the person is that way? If this person grew up around parents that were cursing and negative all the time would you expect citymonks best friend to be any different? Can you blame the parents, or did her parents have parents and those parents have parents, etc… that raised their children this way. How much do you feel it is the individuals responsibility and how much do you feel rests on the shoulders of the one before?
best to you
Brother Neil[/QUOTE]

I do not think that “fault” is an accurate word here.
Everything is just an experience and no fault wrong or right…

And absolutely, if one grew up in ghetto, with drug addict parents, and her mom is just 12 years older than daughter…that girl has very little chance to become balanced person.

Yogi say that these people have bad karma. They did bad in their previous incarnations and thats why they were born in this kind of family.

So everything what is happening to us (including the family we are born in) depends only on our deeds.

And as we “deserved” to born as humans - we can improve ourselves and get better during this life-cycle to get better incarnation in the next one.

…returning to that girl from the “disadvantaged neighborhood”. Because if her last incarnation she got this one and as a result very little chance to change anything in this life-cycle as well.

Do goo things, think good thoughts!

[QUOTE=CityMonk;33406]I do not think that “fault” is an accurate word here.
Everything is just an experience and no fault wrong or right…

And absolutely, if one grew up in ghetto, with drug addict parents, and her mom is just 12 years older than daughter…that girl has very little chance to become balanced person. .[/QUOTE]

See, now this is wisdom. This is why I come to these forums.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33388]There is no science higher than Vedic science. It is the science of a superhuman civilisation. Advanced
planets in our universe are using Vedic science.[/QUOTE]

It’s not science! If it is, then so is ‘Christian Science’. Read my lips SCIENCE WITH AN AGENDA, IS NOT SCIENCE. Scientist want to be wrong, because when they have discovered they have been wrong, then they know they have learnt something. You desperately crave being right all the time. That’s why you not a scientist. Your just inadequate.