'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology'

Spirituality
#56

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;75066]"The witnessing consciousness is that which Is the “same” in all people. "

Even this witnessing consciousness is just a side effect of something else within you which is far more essential. Those who mistake The Witness as their original nature have been projecting a limtiing quality as though it were the ultimate. Ones original nature is simply inexpressible - being beyond all limiting qualities, identities, forms. By thinking it to be the Witness, you are imposing boundaries upon it. A witness requires a division in the mind between that which witnesses and that which is witnessed. Without the witnessed, the witness cannot exist - even if it means witnessing itself.

There is a certain statement by Lao Tzu, that the Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. When you abandon just about everything that your mind can grasp onto, even the very idea of nothingness, which is also another limiting quality, what will you call this ?[/QUOTE]

I am simply stating what Yoga says: Then the witnessing consciousness is revealed.

What is beyond the witnessing consciousness is the subject of Vedanta: Brahman. However, it unnecessarily complicates life to even think beyond and nor does it help knowing. In Vedanta the prerequisite to its study if the mastery of Yoga itself.

I think questions about what happens after reaching liberation are irrelevant. You are effectively asking what happens at the end of time, and ones mind cannot answer those questions.

#57

Yay everyone is in agreement though.
:stuck_out_tongue: meaning their is mutual understanding

#58

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;75042]I don’t need your advice, thank you very much :slight_smile: Please find somebody else to play guru with. I am not interested.[/QUOTE]

Rebuke the foolish and he shall hate you. Rebuke the wise and he loves you more.

#59

Yes but it is how one is rebuked. It is (how) one corrects another.
Correct with truth. Speak truth. But truth is just as important as how one speaks it.
We are all teachers and students.be both but be neither.
A teacher makes statements through questions. Thus he is never above nor below.
A student askes questions through statements. Thus he too is never above or below. Never assumeone position. Or another or u deprive yourself of its opposite.

Correct but do not be the teacher. Ask but do not be the student.

#60

In this. When the foolish is corrected, it is not you who is correcting, for u asked a question impersonally. Now the fool thinks of the question. But you are not its sorce.
Do the same to the wise. U will never be praised nor loved for this. Nor hated. For the correction is impersonal.
"I often ask questions I already know the answers too,but I do not ask expecting to receive my answer.but I can lead u to my answer through asking questions. As long as my answer is truth. Anyway do not be offended for I am you!
Namaste. I bow do the divine in you it means?
meaning I bow to that which is without self identification that exists within me and you.

#61

[QUOTE=Avatar186;75082]Yay everyone is in agreement though.
:stuck_out_tongue: meaning their is mutual understanding[/QUOTE]

Not everyone is in agreement. Surya Deva has made the statement that yoga is nothing but a practical psychology, so now he needs to twist the meaning of the yoga sutras in order to make them fit his pre-determined conclusion. This is exactly the wrong approach, but not unlike many who have gone before him. This is why the true meaning of the yoga sutras is so obscure, because so many people have put their own spin on it, the intent of the original authors is hidden under layer upon layer of dross.

The Samkhya-Yoga literature is very clear. They believed in the multiplicity of purusas. This is one of the central tenets of the philosophy. In denying this and obscuring the meaning, Surya Deva reveals himself to be no different than all of the other charlatans. However Surya Deva can be forgiven because of his hindu background. It has been the practice of hindus to twist samkhya-yoga into vedanta for a very long time. Surya Deva is just continuing the tradition.

#62

[QUOTE=Avatar186;75115]In this. When the foolish is corrected, it is not you who is correcting, for u asked a question impersonally. Now the fool thinks of the question. But you are not its sorce.
Do the same to the wise. U will never be praised nor loved for this. Nor hated. For the correction is impersonal.
"I often ask questions I already know the answers too,but I do not ask expecting to receive my answer.but I can lead u to my answer through asking questions. As long as my answer is truth. Anyway do not be offended for I am you!
Namaste. I bow do the divine in you it means?
meaning I bow to that which is without self identification that exists within me and you.[/QUOTE]

No offense taken. I see your point and I actually do try to apply that methodology when I feel situation calls for it. Not one keys fits all locks as you very well know.

#63

[QUOTE=Asuri;75205]Not everyone is in agreement. Surya Deva has made the statement that yoga is nothing but a practical psychology, so now he needs to twist the meaning of the yoga sutras in order to make them fit his pre-determined conclusion. This is exactly the wrong approach, but not unlike many who have gone before him. This is why the true meaning of the yoga sutras is so obscure, because so many people have put their own spin on it, the intent of the original authors is hidden under layer upon layer of dross.

The Samkhya-Yoga literature is very clear. They believed in the multiplicity of purusas. This is one of the central tenets of the philosophy. In denying this and obscuring the meaning, Surya Deva reveals himself to be no different than all of the other charlatans. However Surya Deva can be forgiven because of his hindu background. It has been the practice of hindus to twist samkhya-yoga into vedanta for a very long time. Surya Deva is just continuing the tradition.[/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate on the differences you find between Samkyha and vedanta? I must confess my opinion. That there is no real difference between the two essentially, and that any differences are matters of misconception, and those misconceptions have become mass hysteria.

#64

I really don’t have time to get into all of the differences between the two. Anyone who has studied samkhya philosophy at all should know that one of the major differences is that samkhya believes in the multiplicity of purusas (selfs). That is no misconception, there is a definite difference in the philosophies. Some try to explain away the difference with logic, but their logic is faulty.

If one believes in the doctrine of liberation, as the hindus do, then it is necessary to also believe in the individual self, because one self cannot be both liberated and not liberated at the same time. The self is either bound (to material nature) or free. If there is only one ultimate self, if he is liberated, then all must be liberated, if he is bound, then all must be bound. So which doctrine do you choose, liberation or one self?

They say that, since the purusa is different from the qualities of material nature, that there is nothing to distinguish one from the other, therefore there must be only one purusa. But this logic fails to consider that the qualities that distinguish one from another are simply beyond our ability to understand and express. The fact of life is that different individuals are born into different circumstances, they have different abilities and talents, their lives take different courses, as do their deaths. To assert that this is all a matter of misconception is to render life devoid of meaning.

#65

[QUOTE=Avatar186;74923]
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. [/QUOTE]

Actually this isn’t bad for something that you came up with yourself. In samkhya philosophy, the mirror is called [I]buddhi[/I]. In general, this is the power of ascertainment or discernment, it is the highest evolute of material nature in man. Man perceives the world through the senses, which are controlled and coordinated through the lower mind (called [I]manas[/I]) and finally reflected in budhhi. What the self experiences is the reflection. Usually the buddhi is directed outward, towards the world. But what happens when the self sees itself reflected in buddhi? This is the process of yoga, to turn the attention of the mind inward, toward the self. But in order to navigate this successfully, one must understand the levels of material nature that one has to pass through. It is very common to mistake some part of the material nature for the self.

The yoga sutras discusses this using the analogy of a crystal or gem that reflects the world around it. One has to remove the various things that color the reflection until the crystal reflects clearly. Then real insight and understanding can occur.

The imagery used in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (the two birds on the same tree) actually does refer to a higher self and a lower self. If this agrees with your personal beliefs and experience, that is fine. But one must understand clearly that the philosophy expressed in Svetasvatara and that expressed in the yoga sutras are not the same. Historically Svetasvatara is older and is clearly rejected in later samkhya literature. The yoga sutras is a samkhya document.

#66

Yoga is phych-physiological control.
To take all the flowery speech out of it. Mind body control.
Thus if western phychology was a finished and complete philosophy ‘which it is not’ it would reflect yogas understanding.

What matters most. Is that you perfect your experiance. For if you perfect your experiance. What more can you truly ask for???
Its late! I read and post more later:)

#67

[QUOTE=Asuri;75212]

the major differences is that samkhya believes in the multiplicity of purusas (selfs).

That is no misconception, there is a definite difference in the philosophies. Some try to explain away the difference with logic, but their logic is faulty.

If one believes in the doctrine of liberation, as the hindus do, then it is necessary to also believe in the individual self, because one self cannot be both liberated and not liberated at the same time. The self is either bound (to material nature) or free. If there is only one ultimate self, if he is liberated, then all must be liberated, if he is bound, then all must be bound. So which doctrine do you choose, liberation or one self?

They say that, since the purusa is different from the qualities of material nature, that there is nothing to distinguish one from the other, therefore there must be only one purusa. But this logic fails to consider that the qualities that distinguish one from another are simply beyond our ability to understand and express. The fact of life is that different individuals are born into different circumstances, they have different abilities and talents, their lives take different courses, as do their deaths. To assert that this is all a matter of misconception is to render life devoid of meaning.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Yes. There are many purushas. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions.

[I]There is not just “the one purusha” who cloaks himself in maya and appears to be the many. What poppy cock! That’s where the “I am God” hysteria comes from - or at least one of it’s sources. [/I]

One thinks about it, and then one must reject it because it’s insanity.
God would not do that, and if he did then that would be stupid, because what kind of creation is that? And God is not stupid… but rather an unfathomable super genius of the most incomprehensible power.

Amen.

He creates the creation, and brings forth all of his children.
He doesn’t create the creation and pretend he’s his children. Ridiculous.

So we must look for the root cause of this mass hysteria!

[I]“I am that. That is this. You are that and thats all there is.”[/I]a dangerous bit of nonsense if I ever did read one, and one that has apparently swept the globe. The negative power gives out a tremendous belly laugh at this one, and he slaps his knee.

"I am Krishna. I am brahman. I am buddha. I am Shiva!"
If by all those “I am such and such’es” you meaning actually is “I am the self an individual among the multiplicity” then you would be correct, otherwise your flying in the realms of imagination.

#68

I am not this, I am not that; simplistic mystery.

#69

No, actually Aurobindo has made that statement :wink:

so now he needs to twist the meaning of the yoga sutras in order to make them fit his pre-determined conclusion.

Not twisted anything, clearly presented the material from the YS that deals with psychological content. I have presented direct translations(without interpretations) Pointing out something is not the same as twisting it. Twisting is more like you what you do, taking stuff from the bible and interpreting Samkhya-Yoga into it; like saying Christian doctine talks of the higher self(lol) It is clear who is the twister here :wink:

This is exactly the wrong approach, but not unlike many who have gone before him. This is why the true meaning of the yoga sutras is so obscure, because so many people have put their own spin on it, the intent of the original authors is hidden under layer upon layer of dross.

Who said the meaning of the Yoga sutras is obscure? It is pretty clear to me and pretty clear to scholarship. There are several dozen translations of Yoga Sutras in various languages. Nothing obscure about it. Surprising you struggle.

The Samkhya-Yoga literature is very clear. They believed in the multiplicity of purusas. This is one of the central tenets of the philosophy. In denying this and obscuring the meaning, Surya Deva reveals himself to be no different than all of the other charlatans. However Surya Deva can be forgiven because of his hindu background. It has been the practice of hindus to twist samkhya-yoga into vedanta for a very long time. Surya Deva is just continuing the tradition.

Samkha-Yoga are two of the 6 classical Hindu schools of philosophy. So what do you mean by “Hindus are twisting Samkhya-Yoga”? Samkhya-Yoga is a Hindu school of philosophy and has emerged directly from the Vedas lol

I never denied that Samkhya talks about a multiplicity of purushas. In fact one can read any of my posts where I have talked about the basics of Samkhya philsosophy and I mention that one of the tenets is there are a multiplicity of purushas.

However, if you actually read on the scholarship on Samkhya, one of the problems within the philosophy is the multiplicity of purushas. This is for the argument I already stated: There is nothing to distinguish one purusha from the other. For whatever can be used to distinguish one from the other all belongs to prakriti. Thus all purushas have to be identical in nature.

You clearly have not read into the scholarship on Samkhya nor seem to care to(afraid of learning something new? :wink: ). You seem to be content on twisting Samkhya to fit your Chrisitan religious beliefs. Thus it is clear to any scholar of Samkhya where you stand. It should be clear to any rational person that you are twisting Samkhya, because Samkhya is not from the Christian tradition, but yet you present it as if it were.

#70

Sounds like a desperate personal attack to me. This is like the argument of a five-year old child. I pointed out that you misinterpreted the yoga sutras to meet your pre-defined conclusion. You come back with “I’m not twisting it, [I]you’re[/I] twisting it”. You need to grow up.

#71

Sounds like a desperate personal attack to me.

No, but these certainly are clear personal attacks

Surya Deva reveals himself to be no different than all of the other charlatans.

This is like the argument of a five-year old child.

You need to grow up.

And I have reported them to David. I think you have forgotten personal attacks are no longer tolerated on this forum and is a bannable offense. It does not surprise me you would be the first to break this rule. You have never been capable of any having civil, mature and logical discussions with anybody. And you are the only one on this forum whose actually been banned for 3 months for making personal attacks. Do you never learn?

#72

Actually I’ve engaged in discussions with two other members in this very thread without any problems. It’s obvious that you have misrepresented me in that respect. You’ve also misrepresented my level of knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga, you’ve misrepresented the comparison I made with Christian theology, you’ve misrepresented Samkhya-Yoga philosophy as hindu when in fact it contains non-hindu beliefs and concepts, you’ve misrepresented what you yourself stated in the early part of this thread, yet you accuse me of personal attacks.

I’ve kicked some butt around here when it needed to be done. I don’t apologize for it. I’m proud to have served my time, and I’d do it again. And if the management is going to warn me for being critical of you, well then I guess I have a problem with the management.

#73

Surya,

“What is beyond the witnessing consciousness is the subject of Vedanta: Brahman. However, it unnecessarily complicates life to even think beyond and nor does it help knowing. In Vedanta the prerequisite to its study if the mastery of Yoga itself.”

I don’t think much Vedanta is needed at all to simply understand that whatever becomes included as part of one’s knowledge becomes limited. If one says that one’s true nature is “awareness”, “consciousness”, a soul, a spirit, or even “emptiness”, “nothingness”, whatever can be said about it - one will be imposing limiting qualities onto it. If anything, it is useful to simply understand that the moment one starts clinging to any knowledge at all, one has created all sorts of barriers. If this is understood, even just on an intellectual level, that can be very helpful along the path.

“I think questions about what happens after reaching liberation are irrelevant. You are effectively asking what happens at the end of time, and ones mind cannot answer those questions.”

I agree. All too often, many spiritual traditions had become obsessed with the otherworldly at the expense of living this life. If one is not truly living, only then do such questions as to what happens after death of the body becomes relevant. Because life has somehow been found to be unsatisfying, one now needs all sorts of beliefs and philosophies to cover the void. It is mostly an effort to create some amount of security in life. The essential insights that had happened in the East is that there is nothing in existence which is not divine. If you see things with your own clear seeing eyes, beyond the prejudices and programming of the mind, there is nothing else except the divine. This is why amongst the Hindus, they have said that there are so many different “gods” and “godesses”, yet at the same time they have always said that everything is none other than a manifestation of Brahman. There is no other. If one truly understands this, then just very simple, ordinary things in life become divine. The ordinary is the beyond, and the beyond is the ordinary. The Buddhists expressed this in their own terminology - that “Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samara” - there is absolutely no difference between existence as it is and the so called “transcendental” reality.

#74

Amir,

I like what you say, but it strikes me as a bit idealistic. There is that which is sacred, but there is also that which is profane. If all is a manifestation of the divine, how does one account for the existence of evil?

#75

[QUOTE=Asuri;75259]Actually I’ve engaged in discussions with two other members in this very thread without any problems. It’s obvious that you have misrepresented me in that respect. You’ve also misrepresented my level of knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga, you’ve misrepresented the comparison I made with Christian theology, you’ve misrepresented Samkhya-Yoga philosophy as hindu when in fact it contains non-hindu beliefs and concepts, you’ve misrepresented what you yourself stated in the early part of this thread, yet you accuse me of personal attacks.

I’ve kicked some butt around here when it needed to be done. I don’t apologize for it. I’m proud to have served my time, and I’d do it again. And if the management is going to warn me for being critical of you, well then I guess I have a problem with the management.[/QUOTE]

By now you have probably understood that if you attempt “to kick any more ass” there will not be an “again” I personally have to thank David for the recent stand he has taken on personal attacks, it has significantly improved the quality of discussions on here. Please do not not ruin it for everybody. Stick to the subject, and stop making it personal. By all means share your perspectives, discuss your points and make your arguments, but do so without personal attacks and the blatant rudeness and disrespect you often show to others when you disagree with them.

You comments on me go well beyond “criticism” You have called me a charlatan, said I argue like a 5 year old and need to grow up and accused me of twisting Samkhya and Yoga to suit my needs and said I am doing this because I am a Hindu. You could have easily said your points without all that violence. You are mature enough to know how to do that. I really shouldn’t have to tell you to do it.

There a lot of statements you are making on Samkhya which basically are absurd to any scholar of Samkhya. You say Samkhya is non-Hindu or contains a lot of non-Hindu stuff, but I honestly cannot see how you maintain this view rationally, when clearly Samkhya is classified as one of the six schools of Hindu philosophy by scholars.
Samkhya philosophy underpins a lot of Hindu literature: It forms the core of the Gita and the core of the entire Tantra tradition, where Purusha and Prakriti are personified as Shiva and Shakti.
It is also clear that Samkhya philosophy is first described in the Vedas, the Upanishads and Samkhya philosophy is also the core of Hindu medicine: Ayurveda. It is simply absurd to say Samkhya is not Hindu. Honestly a highly ridiculous statement. Never heard anybody but you say this in all the Samkhya literature I have read. I would be interested where you get these ideas from?

What I also find absurd if how you say Samkhya is non-Hindu or even anti-Hindu, and yet you think it is highly compatible with Christian theology. Surely, anybody who is rational can clearly see Samkhya is worlds apart from Christian doctrines, for starters its classical form is atheist. It advocates reincarnation. It gives nature the primary role of agency, nature self-evolves and transforms by her own natural impulses. It gives spirit/soul a completely passive role. There is no free will. No Devil. No creator god. No Son, father or holy spirit trinity. How on earth is it anywhere close to Christianity? It is amusing how you will draw parallels between Samkhya and Christianity, but oppose violently any kind of similarity drawn between Samkhya and Vedanta, which anybody can see are very close to each other.