Why do Yoga?

Spirituality
#61

Sarva you are no longer making any sense. Rather than responding to your idiotic points one by one, I will pick out one idiotic point and respond to that.

No official body of anything has to decide whether something is scientific. Something is scientific if it’s theories are validated through the scientific method. The fact that transpersonal psychology is taught in colleges or used in clinical settings doesn’t say anything about the scientific nature of the subject. It only shows your ignorance that you bring them forth as examples.

An official scientific body like the BPS or APA that examines psychologists for quality standards in their scientific practices is not a valid authority on deciding whether transpersonal psychology is a valid scientific discipline or not?

Then who is the one that decides whether somebody is following the scientific method in their practice or not? You?

I sometimes have to pinch myself on the kind of stupid conversations I have on this forum sometimes :smiley:

#62

Jung is not considered a scientist, but a psycho-analytical theorist.

Sorry I had to quote this one again. Remind to tell psychoanalysts that they are not scientists lol

#63

Some facts about Jung:

http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology. He is best known for his theories of the Collective Unconscious, including the concept of archetypes, and the use of synchronicity in psychotherapy. Along with Sigmund Freud, Jung pioneered modern theories of the relationships between the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind. But while Freud postulated a psychosexual explanation for human behavior, Jung perceived the primary motivating force to be spiritual in origin. According to Jung, it was from the soul that the complementary drives of differentiation and integration arose, fueling the processes of growth, development, and healing. Mental illness arose when these processes were thwarted. Influential in a variety of disciplines from theology to art to atomic physics, Carl Jung is considered, along with Freud and Alfred Adler, to be one of the principle founding fathers of modern psychology. In addition to producing his theory of the Collective Unconscious, Jung’s work fueled the development of both word association tests and the Meyers-Briggs personality tests. A prolific writer, his best known works include The Psychology of the Unconscious (1912) and Psychological Types (1921).

University: MD, University of Basel, Switzerland (1900)
University: PhD, University of Z?rich, Switzerland (1902)
Professor: Psychology, University of Z?rich, Switzerland (1932-40)
Professor: Medical Psychology, University of Basel, Switzerland (1944-45)

He is not a scientist? HAHA

#64

Next Sarva will be telling us Psychiatrists are not scientists!!!

#65

Just got back, and I was deeply pondering Sarva assertion that Jung is not a scientist! And I realized he is right! Jung is not a scientist at all, he is a psychologist/psychiatrist! And Newton, Einstein were also definitely not scientists… they were physicists! And Darwin was also certainly no scientist… he was a biologist!!!

:wink:

#66

From British Society of Psychology, the official regulating body for all things psychology in Britain:

The Society and its members develop, promote and apply psychology for the public good. We enhance the efficiency and usefulness of psychologists by setting high standards of professional education and knowledge. We cover all areas of psychological research and practice.

We do this by:

Providing a Directory of Chartered Psychologists
Providing information to the public
Ensuring high standards of education, training and practice
Increasing the awareness and influence of psychology
Supporting our members’ professional development
Providing conferences and events
Publishing
Setting standards in psychological testing
Maintaining and developing the History of Psychology Centre

#67

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72062]Just got back, and I was deeply pondering Sarva assertion that Jung is not a scientist! And I realized he is right! Jung is not a scientist at all, he is a psychologist/psychiatrist! And Newton, Einstein were also definitely not scientists… they were physicists! And Darwin was also certainly no scientist… he was a biologist!!!

;)[/QUOTE]

Uh, no. The theories of Darwin, Einstein are falsifiable. Classical psycho-analysis of Freud, Jung and Adler is not.

In another topic, Asuri asked the question “Intellectual or con artist,” in this and other threats Surya Deva extensively refers to Karl Popper. One of Asuri’s criticism was that Surya Deva constantly changes his position as a tactic to win arguments. This has become pretty clear here, since Karl Popper was one of the major critics of the scientic status of psycho-analysis. Ironically, Surya Deva is now defending the scientific status of classical psycho-analysis. It can be observed that Surya Deva is willing to refer to a scientific or philosophical theory when it suits him and reject it when it doesn’t.

Meanwhile, while we are discussing the scientific status of classical psycho-analysis and transpersonal psychology, maybe we can ask what drives Surya Deva’s need to appear as an authority, intellectual or scholar on this forum, while clearly he is not. This could be the subject of many hours of psycho-analysis. The fact that he has made six posts in response to my last message, indicates some form of obsessive compulsion, while his approval seeking behavior stems from his amourous feelings towards his mother.

#68

Well, whether somebody is a scientist/psychiatrist/physicist…etc…is just a labeling process and that is done through “learning process”(according to Osho). Suppose, in school, if all teachers say “USA is a Yogic Country”, then the students most probably would believe that for lack of evidence against it. So, all conclusions are manipulations of perceptions of mind.

To me, if what Surya Deva has said on this forum is true, then he is one yogi on a good (but may be long and stressful) yogic path. One day, he may reach the destination. One with a process of self-correction can not go wrong many times.
The fact that he is not a Hindu/Indian and somehow learned so many Yogic concepts is a good one. Had he born in India into a Brahmin family he would have got by now what he is searching/aspiring for.

Few would come to India in search of real guru(One of them was Steve Jobs). Few would spend their time on books and other resources like Surya Deva. Yes, he is passionate about arguments (There is a whole book on that: Argumentative Indian) as anyone on this forum…!!!

#69

Wonderful review on yoga. Though it is helpful to improved breathing, Decreased back pain. stress reduction and with flexibility. That’s it necessary to do in our daily life.

#70

[QUOTE=yaram;72068]Had he born in India into a Brahmin family he would have got by now what he is searching/aspiring for.

Few would come to India in search of real guru(One of them was Steve Jobs).[/QUOTE]

Giggling at the delusion here, snicker; what possible matter where one is born when coming to understanding of true inner nature, even Nisargadatta Maharaj was once asked this question:

Q: Do you advise me to come to India repeatedly?

M: If you are earnest, you don’t need moving about. You are yourself wherever you are and you create your own climate. Locomotion and transportation will not give you salvation. You are not the body and dragging the body from place to place will take you nowhere. Your mind is free to roam the three worlds – make full use of it.

#71

Darwin’s theory of is Evolution is falsifiable? Uh, no. As no scientist has ever been able to see evolution take place, much less see the cause of it is being natural selection, the theory is actually not falsifiable. We cannot directly test it.

You obviously work very rigid definitions of what is science and what is not, and seem to arbitrarily apply that definition as it suits you.

Psychology is considered a science because it uses the scientific method to study mind and behaviour, in the same way hard sciences use the scientific method to study physical matter. In psychology science works in exactly the same way: there is a hypothesis, an experiment is set up to test that hypothesis, the experiment is repeated again and again to replicate the results.

You clearly have not studied psychology, and you if you did went to sleep during class when you looked at the various experiments that have been set up to test theories in psychology, including psychoanalysis.

In another topic, Asuri asked the question “Intellectual or con artist,” in this and other threats Surya Deva extensively refers to Karl Popper. One of Asuri’s criticism was that Surya Deva constantly changes his position as a tactic to win arguments. This has become pretty clear here, since Karl Popper was one of the major critics of the scientic status of psycho-analysis. Ironically, Surya Deva is now defending the scientific status of classical psycho-analysis. It can be observed that Surya Deva is willing to refer to a scientific or philosophical theory when it suits him and reject it when it doesn’t.

So because I agree with Karl Popper’s theory of falsificationism, this must mean I must agree with every opinion of Popper right?

#72

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72085]Darwin’s theory of is Evolution is falsifiable? Uh, no. As no scientist has ever been able to see evolution take place, much less see the cause of it is being natural selection, the theory is actually not falsifiable. We cannot directly test it.[/quote]The most direct evidence that evolutionary theory is falsifiable may be the original words of Charles Darwin who, in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Psychology is considered a science because it uses the scientific method to study mind and behaviour, in the same way hard sciences use the scientific method to study physical matter. In psychology science works in exactly the same way: there is a hypothesis, an experiment is set up to test that hypothesis, the experiment is repeated again and again to replicate the results.

You clearly have not studied psychology, and you if you did went to sleep during class when you looked at the various experiments that have been set up to test theories in psychology, including psychoanalysis.
Like I said earlier, I never said that psychology isn’t a science, this is you putting words in my mouth. Modern scientific psychology is something completely different from the classical psycho analytical theories of Freud, Jung and Adler or transpersonal “high on drugs” psychology.

So because I agree with Karl Popper’s theory of falsificationism, this must mean I must agree with every opinion of Popper right?

You don’t have to agree with all of his opinion, but you apply his theory of falsifiability very selectively as it suits you.

But the whole discussion about which psychologists were scientific, has no consequence on the fact that yoga is not a scientific form of psychology, but a religious and mystical practice. To call yoga a psyhology is a tautological fallacy: “yoga is psychology, because psychology is based on yoga.” We only have to look at history to know that yoga was a religious practice and not some form of mental health therapy.

#73

[QUOTE=ray_killeen;72083]Giggling at the delusion here, snicker; [B]what possible matter where one is born when coming to understanding of true inner nature[/B] [B][I]really???[/I][/B], even Nisargadatta Maharaj was once asked this question:
[B][I]If time and space importance(when one is born and where he is born) are such a delusions, nobody might have asked Nisargadatta Maharaj about that.[/I][/B]

Q: Do you advise me to come to India repeatedly?

M: If you [B]are earnest[/B], you don’t need moving about. You are yourself wherever you are and you create your own climate. [B]Locomotion and transportation will not give you salvation. You are not the body and dragging the body from place to place will take you nowhere. Your mind is free to roam the three worlds – make full use of it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Any amount of wishful thinking can not make one to roam free. Not the transportation or locomotion…etc.

What your Nisargadatta Maharaj [B]has not told[/B] you is this: The importance of “Karma” (to be precise, ‘accumulated Karma’). That good Karma, my dear, is difficult to get in West (OK, this is my opinion).Attending Yoga courses, reading texts will not add much to the “Karma points”.

#74

[QUOTE=yaram;72088]Any amount of wishful thinking can not make one to roam free. Not the transportation or locomotion…etc.

What your Nisargadatta Maharaj [B]has not told[/B] you is this: The importance of “Karma” (to be precise, ‘accumulated Karma’). That good Karma, my dear, is difficult to get in West (OK, this is my opinion).Attending Yoga courses, reading texts will not add much to the “Karma points”.[/QUOTE]

Examine your beliefs, are they interfering or helping. I?m not in the business of defending dead persons but let?s call it Jnana yoga:

M: Karma shapes the circumstances: the attitudes are your own. Ultimately your character shapes your life and you alone can shape your character.

M: Nothing compels me. I do what needs doing. But you do so many unnecessary things. It is your refusal to examine that creates karma. It is the indifference to your own suffering that perpetuates it.

M: You must be free first. To be free in the world you must be free of the world. Otherwise your past decides for you and your future. Between what had happened and what must happen you are caught. Call it destiny or karma, but never – freedom. First return to your true being and then act from the heart of love.

M: The state of identity is inherent in reality and never fades. But identity is neither the transient personality (vyakti), nor the karma-bound individuality (vyakta). It is what remains when all self-identification is given up as false – pure consciousness, the sense of being all there is, or could be. Consciousness is pure in the beginning and pure in the end; in between it gets contaminated by imagination which is at the root of creation. At all times consciousness remains the same. To know it as it is, is realisation and timeless peace.

M: Karma is only a store of unspent energies, of unfulfilled desires and fears not understood. The store is being constantly replenished by new desires and fears. It need not be so for ever. Understand the root cause of your fears – estrangement from yourself: and of desires – the longing for the self, and your karma will dissolve like a dream. Between earth and heaven life goes on. Nothing is affected, only bodies grow and decay.

M: You may change the name, but the fact remains. What is the drug which you call karma or destiny? It made you believe yourself to be what you are not. What is it, and can you be free of it? Before you go further you must accept, at least as a working theory, that you are not what you appear to be, that you are under the influence of a drug. Then only will you have the urge and the patience to examine the symptoms and search for their common cause. All that a Guru can tell you is: ?My dear Sir, you are quite mistaken about yourself. You are not the person you think yourself to be.? Trust nobody, not even yourself. Search, find out, remove and reject every assumption till you reach the living waters and the rock of truth. Until you are free of the drug, all your religions and sciences, prayers and Yogas are of no use to you, for based on a mistake, they strengthen it. But if you stay with the idea that you are not the body nor the mind, not even their witness, but altogether beyond, your mind will grow in clarity, your desires – in purity, your actions – in charity and that inner distillation will take you to another world, a world of truth and fearless love. Resist your old habits of feeling and thinking; keep on telling yourself: ?No, not so, it cannot be so; I am not like this, I do not need it, I do not want it?, and a day will surely come when the entire structure of error and despair will collapse and the ground will be free for a new life. After all, you must remember, that all your preoccupations with yourself are only in your waking hours and partly in your dreams; in sleep all is put aside and forgotten. It shows how little important is your waking life, even to yourself, that merely lying down and closing the eyes can end it. Each time you go to sleep you do so without the least certainty of waking up and yet you accept the risk.

M: You are completely free even now. What you call destiny (karma) is but the result of your own will to live. How strong is this will you can judge by the universal horror of death.

#75

Hmmm…I am just posting my views here:

There seems to be a feeling in western countries that [B]Yoga is some sort of commodity[/B] (may be, some are even thinking to buy some in Walmart or nearest retail store) and “Kundalini” can be achieved by wishful thinking. The way Yoga teacher trainings are in demand, it seems like a booming business in West and even in India.
When one of the regular posters here (Amir Mourad) said that the western import of Yoga is highly degraded, I thought, it may not be true. Now some posts on this forum validate his point.
I used to even think that a Guru is not necessary to learn Yoga. Now, I would like to change that opinion. It is dangerous and waste of time to pursue Yoga without proper direction from Guru.

Without even a basic initiation, people take some guru’s words in an interview and literally start even believing them. Used to think, why there are so many fake Gurus. Now, I come to the conclusion…: [B]“As the students, so are the Gurus”[/B]

#76

[QUOTE=ray_killeen;72089]Examine your beliefs, are they interfering or helping. I?m not in the business of defending dead persons but let?s call it Jnana yoga:

M: Karma shapes the circumstances: the attitudes are your own. Ultimately your character shapes your life and you alone can shape your character.

…
…
…

M: You are completely free even now. What you call destiny (karma) is but the result of your own will to live. How strong is this will you can judge by the universal horror of death.[/QUOTE]

To me, the above M: statements are exactly the “pop culture” of Yoga. “Maharaj” is not the first or last master of that ‘fine twisting’ of Yoga and Karma. [B]Let their tribe increase…!!![/B]

#77

The guru from where the spontaneous occurs is the same for all.

#78

This is not what is known as a scientific falsifiable statement. The falsifiable statements must be present in the theory itself. The fact is we cannot test Darwin’s theory of evolution that evolution takes place through natural selection and blind chance mutations, because we cannot actually see the mechanism at work. For all we know evolution could be done by little pixies.

The fact of evolution can be tested, as in we make predictions of the kind of changes that will take place over time in a species based on fossil and DNA evidence(but even then we cannot empirically verify it, because we were not around then) but we cannot test the theory of evolution that it happens by blind chance and natural selection.

It is similar to the often repeated mathematical argument to support Darwin’s theory of evolution, “If 1 million monkeys were typing at a typewritter for infinite time, eventually one of them will have written the complete work of shakespeare”

This is known as an infinite time deferral fallacy. As nobody can test what will happen over infinite time with 1 million monkeys typing away at a typewriter it is entirely unfalsifiable.

Like I said earlier, I never said that psychology isn’t a science, this is you putting words in my mouth. Modern scientific psychology is something completely different from the classical psycho analytical theories of Freud, Jung and Adler or transpersonal “high on drugs” psychology.

You have no argument from me that the methodology Freud and Jung used was not very sophisticated as they originally proposed is not very sophisticated and would not pass the standards of science in modern psychology, but you are neglecting the fact that psychoanalysis is not limited to just their work, but a lot of work has been done in that approach up until today and far better methodologies have been developed to test psychoanalytic theory. Ditto with transpersonal psychology.

A recent example includes an experiment to study the defense mechanism of reaction formation in homophobic men. In the experiment men who identify very strongly as homophobic are exposed to gay and straight porn and their arousal is measured. The results that are found the homophobic men actually are more aroused by the gay porn than the straight porn. The results of the studies do not show conclusively reaction-formation, but indicates very strong evidence that if we have strong aversions to something, it is because unconsciously we desire it.

You don’t have to agree with all of his opinion, but you apply his theory of falsifiability very selectively as it suits you.

No, I do not. I was mentioning his theory of falsification to demonstrate the point that no scientific theory is actually proven. This applies to any statement even as simple as “Here is a glass” because historically we know that all scientific theories eventually are falsified when new data becomes available. I do not at all agree that all science has to be falsifiable, because not everything in science can be falsified, because we do not have the means to falsify it e.g., if I said that there exists invisible rays called radio waves a few hundred years ago, there would be no means to falsify it, but that does not mean that radio waves do not exist and that they cannot actually be made measurable eventually.

Similarly, Popper is against science studying anything that cannot be falsified and considers that pseudoscience e.g., studying ghosts, chakras, healing energy, psychic powers, reincarnation. However, this does not actually mean that neither of these thing exist and cannot be made measurable eventually.
As it so happens we have been able to study these areas today and make them measurable either directly or indirectly through their effects.

But the whole discussion about which psychologists were scientific, has no consequence on the fact that yoga is not a scientific form of psychology, but a religious and mystical practice. To call yoga a psyhology is a tautological fallacy: “yoga is psychology, because psychology is based on yoga.” We only have to look at history to know that yoga was a religious practice and not some form of mental health therapy.

No, I am not actually saying Yoga is a psychology because psychology is based on on Yoga. I am saying Yoga is a psychology because it deals with the study and area of of mind and behavior. This is clear already from the all sutras I have cited - they all deal with mind and behaviour. This by definition is what we call psychology.

You have to be more clear by what you mean by Yoga is a religious and mystical practice. What makes a practice religious and mystical?

#79

The comprehensive methodologies and skillful techniques in the technology of the yogic sciences seemed quite effective at dissecting, identifying and understanding the states of the human mind, along with countless other side effects.

#80

Why do Yoga? Oh I don’t know…just cause