'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology'

Spirituality
#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

#21

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;74887]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[/QUOTE]

and thus we dance in semantics and fantasy. If you go through the sutras you will find distinct sections which elaborate on concepts.

I ask you one more time, and no more (for in the days of old it was the chela who beseeched the teacher) for now, in this age, we have gone so far astray that the teacher must approach the student.

I am not your guru, but I can point you in the right direction.

Self Realization is but the first step. Are you ready to know who you are - or does the darkness win again?

#22

Now, you are presenting yourself as my guru? You are full of it lol
I cannot have a serious discussion with you i’m afraid. I would rather
not have you preaching at me. Share opinions, give reasons(better than
"Because it is") but preaching - no no.

Self Realization is but the first step. Are you ready to know who you are - or does the darkness win again?

Not according to the YS: Yoga is the cessation of the activities/modifications of the mind, then the witnessing self becomes evident.

Self-realization is the final goal of Yoga. It is defined as the total liberation of the soul. When it is liberated it is no longer bound by time, space or causality(prakriti) It merges into the absolute.

#23

I am on phone. Will post what can.now keep with me children! As I lead us through images.
You have a mirror, and the reflection inside that mirror. This is man. In man ishvara is the mirror, the reflection is the world. The mirror has forgotten its true nature for it self identifies with the reflection!
Your true nature is the bird that observes. But this bird has forgotten itself,it self identifies with the bird that eats of the bitter and sweet. Man was made in gods image. Meaning we are not God. We are a reflection of ishvara. As an atom is to a planet. Can the atom fathom the planet!! A baby is closest to God for a new born is as a mirror without reflection. We are born blank slates. Breathing is our first self identification. Then hunger and sleep.
When u merge with ishvara self identification is burned up. You do not exist. You are as God is. You are not God. You are…as he IS. I am. Is the closest and best description of ishvara in words.
The mind is ishvara when pure, the body is the bird that eats the bitter and sweet.
Sun, I like you. You are extremely educated in Scripture. More so than I am. Yoga is mind body control. What else is their? Melchezedic, you are another favorite. I would like to add both u to Facebook if u use that system. For I am no teacher, I am forever a student. And would love to learn your knowledge. I hope to add u two to Facebook so that I may learn what u two know.
truly it would be a boon/blessing.
I seek immortality and the state of being as ishvara is, through physiological manipulation. This is not mystical. Nor far fetched. But is an old road commonly unknown. And occasionally talked about in many cultures. The Taoist, yogis, and books of Bible to be the prime survivor’s. Of history mentioning it. Buddhism also has its place but I consider it part of yoga. Ironically all these cultures seem connected.
Burn all down. Seperate the false from truth. Combustable from incombustable. Smoke from the ashes. Build your path upon incombustable truth/ashes. For white ash does not burn. Take a blow torch to white ash, and it reflects light so greatly it hurts the eyes.

#24

A new insight. Amroli.I love the aghoris for they love reality!
amroli says the first of the stream contains nothing but the thin. Spirit without body. Midstream contains what u want. Do not drink the last for it contains the waste. In drinking my tall can. I notice the first gives no buzz. The middle gives buzz with clarity. The last sucks one into heavyness/turbidness for that is its nature. So as an aghori offers the first to the world by pouring out a bit of his drink. “Some for the homies” lmao. Do we pour the last out as well? Or realize its heavy nature and transform it? Overcome, turn to the lightness
Bwahahaha! Depends on ur capability I guess. Lmao just a subjective insight! :slight_smile:
.

#25

[QUOTE=Avatar186;74923] I would like to add both u to Facebook if u use that system. For I am no teacher, I am forever a student. And would love to learn your knowledge. I hope to add u two to Facebook so that I may learn what u two know.[/QUOTE]

I’d be interested in joining that party on “Facebook”, friend me if you like; Ray Killeen, Allentown PA USA.

#26

I will add you give me just a bit I have the day to do. :slight_smile:

#27

Ill get on comp and add you later. If u can add me. Christopher Paul lobato. Independence Missouri.

#28

I agree that Surya Deva’s interpretation of the yoga sutras is off. It is one of the many interpretations of Isvara that have come down to us through the ages, but it is not the concept that is expressed in the yoga sutras. These various concepts are the result of a process of historical development.

During the times of the Mahabharata, the different beliefs in the nature of Isvara was basically the only difference between the philosophies of Yoga, Samkhya, and Vedanta. The idea of a witnessing consciousness is actually first found in the Svetasvatara Upanishad, which has been shown to be addressing the differences of opinion found in the Epic schools. In the Svetasvatara Upanishad, the creative power that was sometimes attributed to Isvara became attributed to Prakriti. Prakriti was[I] devatma-sakti[/I], the divine power. So if prakriti is the creative power, what need is there of an Isvara? Hence the atheism of classical Samkhya. However there remained a need to explain what could set the creative forces of Prakriti into motion. From this developed the concept of the emergent Isvara, the first soul to emerge at the beginning of a cycle of creation, who in a previous cycle had merged into prakriti through the practice of yoga, and who becomes the all-knower and all-doer in the current cycle of creation.

Granted, the yoga sutras does not contain the complete explanation of Isvara, it is found in the Samkhya literature. But as Surya Deva pointed out, the yoga sutras does mention the practices by which one attains the powers attributed to Isvara, and there is enough similarity in the Samkhya literature to conclude that the emergent Isvara is the specific concept of Isvara that is referred to in the yoga sutras.

People tend to superimpose their own beliefs on the Isvara of the yoga sutras, and it has been suggested that Isvara is an archetype, and that it is intended to be that way. I think that notion is mistaken. The Patanjali concept is specific.