'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology'

Spirituality
#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.

#76

[QUOTE=Asuri;75265]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?[/QUOTE]

The human mind creates the sacred/profane/evil illusion.

#77

What do the readers and posters think about the courage shown by yogis when dealing with scientific and social issues confronting society?

#78

people. keep to the ideas. leave the personal out of it. :slight_smile:

Ray.
When you say illusion. know that this illusion may be called a veil as well.
And that this is very much a part of reality. So while it is an illusion. It is reality. And although you can escape the illusion. That dosnt mean it ceases to exist. It simply ceases to exist for you!

“”" One day i was sad, then i realized, why be sad? and i immediately became joyful escaping the illusion of that emotion. But then i looked around at all the people still stuck in sadness. If only they knew the joy i felt. Ironically, although i escaped the illusion of sadness, i did not realize i simply traded it. For the illusion of joyfullness"

It is not the mind that creats these illusions, but the heart center!!
Break off as many branches as you wish, they will grow back, unless you get to the root of things.
Cut the head of the hydra and it grows back. unless you get to the HEART of things!!!
:wink: Get to the HearT of things, deal with the root. otherwise, all is lost in the winds of mind.

#79

Might scientific and social issues confronting society be seen as personal when those involved with the inner-realizations see their efforts as separate from the external ones? Does the exterior world reflect the interior?

#80

[QUOTE=Avatar186;75313]people. keep to the ideas. leave the personal out of it. :slight_smile:

Ray.
When you say illusion. know that this illusion may be called a veil as well.
And that this is very much a part of reality. So while it is an illusion. It is reality. And although you can escape the illusion. That dosnt mean it ceases to exist. It simply ceases to exist for you!

“”" One day i was sad, then i realized, why be sad? and i immediately became joyful escaping the illusion of that emotion. But then i looked around at all the people still stuck in sadness. If only they knew the joy i felt. Ironically, although i escaped the illusion of sadness, i did not realize i simply traded it. For the illusion of joyfullness"

It is not the mind that creats these illusions, but the heart center!!
Break off as many branches as you wish, they will grow back, unless you get to the root of things.
Cut the head of the hydra and it grows back. unless you get to the HEART of things!!!
:wink: Get to the HearT of things, deal with the root. otherwise, all is lost in the winds of mind.[/QUOTE]

Maya, illusion, veil are interchangeably used by the side shows of the spiritual circus yet they are simply words with varying meanings. The reason ?I? questioned/sought was because ?I? was brought to a world ?I? never asked to come to, handed a death sentence for nothing ?I? did, which starting the inquiry that lead to realization of the misidentification of ?I?, the horror of unnecessary suffering shattered, the veil lifted it was a happening beyond roots, minds, hearts or self.

#81

In through the out door.

#82

It’s actually quite simple. hindus believe in Brahman, Samkhya rejects the idea of Brahman. That is sufficient to establish Samkhya as non-hindu. There is no need to go into other differences in philosophy. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. If you have never heard of this, it shows the shallowness of your alleged knowledge.

You need to stop this campaign of personal attacks against me, which if one digs a little bit, can be seen in many places in this forum. You have consistently misrepresented my views, which could be grounds for legal action against you.

#83

[QUOTE=ray_killeen;75303]The human mind creates the sacred/profane/evil illusion.[/QUOTE]

The human mind may very well create illusion, but the sacred and the profane aren’t illusory. That is, unless you believe that all human experience is illusory, which I don’t.

#84

t’s actually quite simple. hindus believe in Brahman, Samkhya rejects the idea of Brahman. That is sufficient to establish Samkhya as non-hindu. There is no need to go into other differences in philosophy. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. If you have never heard of this, it shows the shallowness of your alleged knowledge.

And this is where you clearly show you don’t know what you are talking about: Hindus believe in Brahman? No, Hindus actually believe in many different things, depending on which denomination or tradition they belong to. The Mimassas do not believe in Brahman, but in the mantras or laws of the Vedas. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not believe in Brahman, but in the personal godhead Vishnu in the form of Krishna. The Shaktas believe in the divine mother. The Shivaists believe in Shiva.

It is a well known fact to scholars of religious studies and generally to people with a simple grasp of Hinduism that Hinduism does not just have one set of beliefs, Hinduism is a highly diverse and pluralistic religion made up many different kinds of traditions and schools of thoughts(of which Samkhya and Yoga are a part of) Even those that believe in Brahman, have various distinctions ranging from Advaita to Dvaita.

You can press as many law suits as you want, it is very clear you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Indian philosophy and Indian religion, and I have exposed that several times already, and right now as well. If you are going to say something as ridiculous as “Samkhya is anti-Hindu” then be prepared to be refuted.

Moreover, Samkhya never actually explicitly rejects Brahman at all. The Samkhyakarika clearly says, “That which cannot be proven neither by perception or reason, can be proven by testimony or revelation” Samkhya is a system of philosophy based on perception and reason, so it cannot say anything about something which is beyond perception and reason, such as Brahman. So it remains quiet on the subject, but never explicitly rejects it as you are claiming here.

#85

[QUOTE=Asuri;75450]The human mind may very well create illusion, but the sacred and the profane aren’t illusory. That is, unless you believe that all human experience is illusory, which I don’t.[/QUOTE]

As to what is sacred and what is profane is based on the subjective value judgement of human minds, and no human minds agree on what is sacred and what is profane, then clearly the notion of sacred and profane is purely a mental construct, and nothing to do with actual reality.

I doubt the tiger thinks it is profane when it hunts down and brutally murders then consumes its prey, nor do I think the cow thinks it is sacred when it gives milk to all.

#86

Yin and Yang symbol in context with the sacred and profane comment. As well hear are a part of reality but are subject to individual creation.

#87

@Surya Deva

This is a good example of what a chamelion you are. You change colors whenever it suits your purpose. In the past you have clearly used the term hindu to refer to a particular religion consisting mostly of vedanta with a little yoga thrown in. Now when you feel the need to defeat me in an argument, the word hindu comes to mean not just one religion but a whole collection of religions. It is because of this willingness to change your views on demand that you have no credibility at all. It is quite clear that your primary objective is to try to discredit me, and that you are willing to say anything to accomplish that goal. You need to get over it, you won’t succeed.

It is a historical fact that the teacher Shankara made a huge effort to try to discredit Samkhya, because it held views that were contrary to his religion, which for convenience I will call hinduism. So it is now quite inconsistent to try to claim Samkhya as being part of that very religion.

It boils down to how you want to define hinduism. If you use it to refer to anything remotely related to the Indian subcontinent, then Samkhya could be called hindu. But because of the religious connotation of the word hindu, I prefer to refer to Samkhya as Indian philosophy, which is completely accurate and free of religious overtones.

It is true that I do not concern myself with the wide variety of things that could be called hindu, depending on how you choose to use the word. My specific area of interest is yoga philosophy and samkhya philosophy. Unfortunately for you, I do know enough about that to expose your falsehoods and misinterpretations.

#88

Asuri, you are painfully out of your depth here. I would rather discuss/debate with an equal, who at least knows the basics.

#89

Clearly then, to you, nothing is sacred.

#90

[QUOTE=Asuri;75490]Clearly then, to you, nothing is sacred.[/QUOTE]

It’s a word humans use to refer to something they think is holy. A piece of rock is unholy, but as soon as they shape into the shape of a deity and consecrate it, all of sudden it is seen as holy. It’s nothing but human fantasy.

#91

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;75489]Asuri, you are painfully out of your depth here. I would rather discuss/debate with an equal, who at least knows the basics.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I’m quite comfortable, feeling no pain at all. You need to find somebody who won’t fight back.

#92

Controversial conversation without argumentation breeds understanding.
without argumentation does not mean without dis agreement. It means to discuss without bringing “yourself” into it.
Do not attack the person,attack the idea.
Do not debate the person,debate the idea.
Do not discredit the person,discredit the idea.
Do not use logical fallacy against the person, use it against the idea.

You two are discussing not only the ideas, but eachother. You two are arguing.
Has argumentation refined the understanding of the ideas? If so please keep arguing about eachother. If not, take the personal out of it, keep to the idea.

Do u agree with this? Or disagree?