'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology'

Spirituality
#1
  • Sri Aurobindo

To separate this topic from the thread, “Why do Yoga” I am setting this new thread up.

It has become clear to many psychologists who have read the Yoga Sutras and other related Yogic texts, that Yoga is a system of psychology, not a religion or a mystical practice.

The term religious and mystical are misleading words to describe Yoga, and are colored with ideology. First, let us consider the term ‘religious’ The fact is most people who practice Yoga in the world are not religious or have strong beliefs in deity or worship of deity. There is indeed a religious dimension to Yoga, because the Sutras do actually prescribe surrender to ‘Ishvara’ as one of the core disciplines of Kriya Yoga. Now, Ishvara is often translated directly as meaning god, but this is misleading because the Yogic concept of god is not the same. In Yoga Ishvara refers to a special background consciousness that dwells within us all, that is pure, unaffected, all-knowing and the real teacher within us. It is not a deity to be worshiped(with rituals galore) Rather it a deeper and higher self within you that needs to be surrendered to. If one does not surrender to their highest self or potential, then how can that potential be realized?

Surrender to ishvara is the only aspect of the sutras that has anything to with the god subject, but it is hardly the most important topic in YS(there are less than half a dozen sutras on the subject of ishvara) Predominately the sutras are about the mind, types of thought, emotions, states of consciousness, cognition, behaviour, and techniques to stabalize the mind. In other words psychology. The opening Sutra itself defines the subject matter of the YS is mind, “Now begins Yoga, Yoga is the cessation or stilling of the activities in the mind” Then goes onto describing the various activities, how thoughts can become affected with emotions, types of emotions and practical techniques to still the activities and neutralize emotions. There is nothing even remotely religious about this.

The problem with the word mystical to describe Yoga is that it suggests Yoga is some airy-fairy, etherial, hocus-pocus, shrouded in mystery, secrecy. This is completely the opposite of what Yoga is. Yoga is a systematic psychological science that can be studied and its effects measured. The YS itself shows the mind and its activities can be studied and controlled. In modern clincal setting we’ve been able to study the mind in the same way Patanjali does, and using modern techniques like neuro-imaging, ECG’s.

So one must be very wary of using terms like religious or mystical to describe Yoga. It misleads and gives the wrong impression of what Yoga really is. Yoga is a scientific system and a practical psychology.

#2

‘‘The problem with the word mystical to describe Yoga is that it suggests Yoga is some airy-fairy, etherial, hocus-pocus, shrouded in mystery, secrecy’’

Yoga is mysticism. The word mysticism does not refer to anything supernatural or otherworldly, as it is often misunderstood. Any method which seeks to come to a direct perception of the original nature of existence is a path of mysticism. An individual who is involved in this process can be called a mystic.

#3

The word mystical maybe used to describe religious types of Yoga like Bhakti Yoga or even Jnana Yoga of Vedanta because they are centered on the realization of a god concept by the union or merger between man and god or supreme reality. This is indeed the definition of what mystical is.
However, it cannot be used to describe the Samkhya-Yoga system of Patanjali which is scientific, because there is little to no emphasis on god. Otherwise Patanjali would say

“Yoga is the union of the soul with god, then there is supreme bliss”

He does not say that, he says

“Yoga is the cessation or stilling of the activities of the mind, then awareness is revealed in its pure and true identity”

None of the words used here are even mildly religious or mystical. They are psychological terms: activities of the mind, awareness, identity. Similarly, throughout the rest of the Yoga sutras we find only technical psychological terms:

Correct cognition
Incorrect cognition
Imagination
Altered states of consciousness
Memories
Afflictions: ignorance, attachment, aversion, identification, fear
Identity
Associations
Actions
Impressions
Conscious, subconscious and unconscious thoughts
Levels of concentration
Habits

Thus it is clear the Yoga sutras is a text on psychology, not religion or mysticism. If we start calling Patanjali’s Yoga religion or mysticism, then we would might as well call the entire science of psychology religion and mysticism.

#4

Surya,

Mysticism does not need the concept of God. Even Zen, which has no place at all for the idea of God, is considered a path of mysticism. It simply refers to any approach whatsoever which seeks to come to a communion with the so called Absolute, whatsoever that may be.

#5

Amir,

Ultimate beingness or ultimate reality is still a concept of god in that it is based on communion with some ultimate state of beingness and divinity. Not unlike Vedanta, which is communion with absolute reality. Thus I even admit that Vedanta is mysticism.

Samkhya-Yoga does not have such a concept of an absolute unifying principle or reality. It is based on matter and consciousness dualism. The purpose of Yoga is to reverse the identification between matter and consciousness, by stilling the minds activities, thus revealing consciousness in its pure identity. It says absolutely nothing about union with a supreme reality or being.

#6

Can yoga been described as bring the seeking self in union with the Self? Where does psychology, or the study of the mind, fit in with the Eternal Self other than as a portal or obstacle to establish that union?

#7

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72161]- Sri Aurobindo

In Yoga Ishvara refers to a special background consciousness that dwells within us all, that is pure, unaffected, all-knowing and the real teacher within us. It is not a deity to be worshiped(with rituals galore) Rather it a deeper and higher self within you that needs to be surrendered to. If one does not surrender to their highest self or potential, then how can that potential be realized?

Surrender to ishvara is the only aspect of the sutras that has anything to with the god subject, but it is hardly the most important topic in YS(there are less than half a dozen sutras on the subject of ishvara) [/QUOTE]

Ishvara is a particular consciousness.

Whos manifesting [I]word[/I] is the pranava.

Who is unaffected by action.

Who is Unconditioned by time.

In him the seed of omniscience is unsurpassed.

You are not Ishvara. Ishvara is not the “higher self.”

“In the begining was the word,
and the word was with God,
and the word was God.”

#8

You are not Ishvara. Ishvara is not the “higher self.”

It is actually true that the Yoga Sutras does say Ishvara is a special soul/purusha who is not affected by action, never comes into bondage, unconditioned by time and the teacher of all, so it is not unreasonable to interpret this as ishvara being a distinct and supreme soul that is separate from individual souls. However, another interpretation is also possible that ishvara is a “higher self” which exists within all souls and is the same higher self. This is because Patanjali does actually say that individual souls eventually attain the same qualities as he describes Ishvara to have; omniscient, timeless, free etc

If we interpret Patanjali correctly, he does not seem to be suggesting there are many souls. He suggests one witnessing consciousness which becomes self-evident when all vrittis are ceased - those vrittis being any memories, knowledge, imagination, states of consciousness, beliefs etc. This would mean that any kind of quality that could distinguish one soul from the other is absent in the witnessing consciousness, therefore the witnessing consciousness must be the same in everybody.

#9

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74832]It is actually true that the Yoga Sutras does say Ishvara is a special soul/purusha who is not affected by action, never comes into bondage, unconditioned by time and the teacher of all, so it is not unreasonable to interpret this as ishvara being a distinct and supreme soul that is separate from individual souls.

However, another interpretation is also possible that ishvara is a “higher self” which exists within all souls and is the same higher self. This is because Patanjali does actually say that individual souls eventually attain the same qualities as he describes Ishvara to have; omniscient, timeless, free etc
[/QUOTE]

His manifesting word is the Pranava.
“because he speaks - this universe is.”

I like to call him the Lord; people have called him by many names.

The Lord who through his word, speaks the subtle form of the universe is not you. He is not the “higher self.”

He is distinct. As the Sage Patanjali has taught.

And he’s in control - like it or not.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74832]
If we interpret Patanjali correctly, he does not seem to be suggesting there are many souls. He suggests one witnessing consciousness which becomes self-evident when all vrittis are ceased - those vrittis being any memories, knowledge, imagination, states of consciousness, beliefs etc. This would mean that any kind of quality that could distinguish one soul from the other is absent in the witnessing consciousness, therefore the witnessing consciousness must be the same in everybody.[/QUOTE]

Your interpretation of Patanjali on this point is off.

Would you care to become self realized?

It’s only the best thing you could ever do for yourself, your country, your people, and the whole wide world…

#10

Your interpretation of Patanjali on this point is off.

Why?

#11

SD,your interpretation is right on the dot.
The upnishads also say, ‘on a tree there are two birds one eats the fruits bitter or sweet and the other just watches.’

#12

Why is it incorrect? Because it is.

I am not disputing the existence of the so called “higher self”

Your “higher Self” is [I]not[/I] Ishvara. Patanjali gave the information in his “Ishvara” section. To me it’s quite clear.

If your under the influence of certain mistaken beliefs then those beleifs provide the basis, or ground for thoughts arising from them, thougths that are also mistaken.

To believe yourself to be “God”, or “God in Disguise” is the height of Delusion and an obstacle the size of the Grand Canyon in the way of yoga.

Such a notion “that I am God” is the happy work of the Negative Power…

the atheist looks in the mirror and what does he see? himself - His god.

He wants not to obey a higher authority, but his own deluded self. He makes excuses and comes up with theories he admires as to why there is no God, that heaven and hell are not, that this life is it - and I can do what I please!

In truth it is comically apparent that “GOD IS”.
But some of his Children deny him, are brats, atheistic, and wander in the desert for many years arguing with each other.

Won’t you come out of the desert?

Come on! It will be fun and dare I say it, enlightening.
If your next response isn’t “yes” then I have nothing more to say in this thread.

#13

Why is it incorrect? Because it is.

Oh, ok then.

#14

Based on my reading of the text, I am in agreement with Sri Aurobindo’s quote that Yoga is nothing but a psychology. The YS to me does not read as a religious text, but a text on psychology. Ishvara, can be interpreted as god, but given the context in the YS which is a text predominantly discussing psychology, Ishvara is simply referring to the background or witnessing consciousness, which is otherwise occluded by all kinds of mental activities, which the aim of Yoga is to eventually silence and still so that consciousness becomes apparent.

The Samkhya-Yoga system has little to do with ‘god’ It is more about the self.

#15

[QUOTE=prasad;74842]SD,your interpretation is right on the dot.
The upnishads also say, ‘on a tree there are two birds one eats the fruits bitter or sweet and the other just watches.’[/QUOTE]

Thanks, yes I agree with your interpretation of the two birds in the tree allegory. Eventually, in the allegory, the bird that eats the fruit gets to the top branch and realizes the watching bird in the tree was just its own reflection. In other words to us souls the watcher appears to be god above us, but when we reach the summit of our spiritual evolution, we realize that god was just a reflection of us i.e. god is verily our higher self.

Patanjali suggests this in the YS that when we reach the point of liberation we attain likeliness with god. This is actually a common message in many spiritual and mystical traditions; eventually man realizes he is a god.

#16

This is not that…

That is not this…

That is not that…

This is not this…

Who are you?

#17

Malchizedec,

"I am not disputing the existence of the so called “higher self”

You should. These ideas of a “higher self” and a “lower self” are just appearances to the mind. In reality, there is nothing higher or lower. Everything is one movement, in the same way that if you put your hand in a sink of running water and slowly change the temperature, you will not be able to find where “hot” begins and where the “cold” ends. This is why the idea of existence being categorized into polar opposites is just an intellectual creation. In existence, there are no dividing lines between this and that. The intellect can create endless dividing lines, it’s very nature is division.

There is no “higher” self or “lower” self. It’s just that if you allow yourself to become receptive, yet totally wakeful, then it is possible for your perception to expand beyond it’s present boundaries. Something much more which was always there enters into your vision. The more the mind comes to a stillness, one will find the more one’s perception expands. Once the mind has come to an absolute stillness, then your consciousness has become as vast as the whole existence itself. It has always been the case, it’s just that man is such a creature of habit, that he has remained blind to the most obvious and the most intimate. That is why enormous practice in most cases is needed along the path, not because the path is difficult, but because man is such a complex being.

#18

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74853]Oh, ok then.[/QUOTE]

He devotes a section to Ishvara. He gives him distinction.

I think it’s pretty clear…

#19

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;74862]Malchizedec,

"I am not disputing the existence of the so called “higher self”

You should. These ideas of a “higher self” and a “lower self” are just appearances to the mind. In reality, there is nothing higher or lower. Everything is one movement, in the same way that if you put your hand in a sink of running water and slowly change the temperature, you will not be able to find where “hot” begins and where the “cold” ends. This is why the idea of existence being categorized into polar opposites is just an intellectual creation. In existence, there are no dividing lines between this and that. The intellect can create endless dividing lines, it’s very nature is division.

There is no “higher” self or “lower” self. It’s just that if you allow yourself to become receptive, yet totally wakeful, then it is possible for your perception to expand beyond it’s present boundaries. Something much more which was always there enters into your vision. The more the mind comes to a stillness, one will find the more one’s perception expands. Once the mind has come to an absolute stillness, then your consciousness has become as vast as the whole existence itself. It has always been the case, it’s just that man is such a creature of habit, that he has remained blind to the most obvious and the most intimate. That is why enormous practice in most cases is needed along the path, not because the path is difficult, but because man is such a complex being.[/QUOTE]

Higher self, lower self. I have nothing to say about that. I’m not quite sure what that is, if there is even is one, so I remain quiet and do not dispute it.

#20

[QUOTE=Melchizedek;74874]He devotes a section to Ishvara. He gives him distinction.

I think it’s pretty clear…[/QUOTE]

There is no section on Ishvara, Ishvara is mentioned in only half a dozen sutras out of approx 200. The sections are as follows:

  1. Samadhi: The theory of Yoga
  2. Sadhana: The practice of Yoga
  3. Vibhutti: The powers/attainments of Yoga
  4. Kaivalya: The goal of Yoga

Ishvara is not the subject matter of any of the sections. Hence why I said in the OP the main focus of the YS is psychology, not religion.

Moreover, there does not seem to be much distinction between ishvara and the librerated purusha. The liberared purusha is identical in qualities to ishvara. The liberated purusha is the same as the drasthu(witnessing consciousness) In other words: Liberated purusha = ishvara = drasthu