'Yoga is nothing but a practical Psychology'

Spirituality
#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?

#93

Avatar, there is no need for me to discuss/debate with Asuri, because he does not know the subject. Debates should be between equals. Asuri does not even know the basics of this subject for me to have any worthwhile debate/discussion with me. For example it is well known fact to scholars of Indian philosophy that Samkhya and Yoga are schools of Hindu philosophy(Astika, as opposed to Nastika) Asuri does not even seem to know this, so why should I bother to debate with somebody who lacks even basic scholarship? I have a degree in the subject and would prefer to debate with somebody who is equally qualified.

Simply put, Asuri does not know what he is talking about. I’d rather discuss this subject with somebody who has some knowledge of the basics, than waste my time giving free education to ignorant people.

#94

Ah I understand.
Well know that I am ignorant on the subject. I have no formal education in this area.
But I do appreciate the reply.
Thank you.
:slight_smile:

#95

Avatar, the difference is, you recognize you are ignorant in the subject :slight_smile: It is another matter when somebody who is actually ignorant claims to know.

#96

There is a big difference between not knowing and having an opposing view. To Surya Deva, anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant. And when he starts to feels frustrated he sinks into these personal attacks. But if someone is even mildly critical of him, he complains to the moderator.

When someone like Surya Deva attempts to position himself as a leader, then character becomes a legitimate concern. Surya Deva is well aware that I have in-depth knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, and in fact that my knowledge surpasses his own, yet he attempts to create the false impression that I lack basic scholarship. Why should I waste my time debating with someone so completely lacking in integrity? He has shown time and time again that he is not interested in a search for truth, but only in establishing himself as the Yoga Forums expert on all things related to yoga philosophy. It’s pathetic.

#97

I did not say who was right or wrong.
Simply acknowledged surya. I acknowledge you as well.
Still. I cannot be convinced of one side or the other, for I do not have in-depth knowledge of the subjects you two speak of. This seems to be a personal matter between you two.
:stuck_out_tongue:

#98

Yes, there is no doubt about the personal animosity. The subject under discussion tends to get lost.

#99

That’s me point!

Their was a picture.
Genius minds discuss ideas
smart minds discuss events
Low minds discuss people

NOW. Even though this saying is NOT true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You get the authors point.

“Caps for emphasis”

#100

Yes, I really hate getting dragged into these low-end arguments, but on some level, I guess I do enjoy a good fight. My battles are based on the principle that, when trying to understand a document like the yoga sutras, one should attempt to discover the intention of the original authors. When people interpret them according to their own personal beliefs, the real meaning gets lost.

#101

But its things like that. Calling it a low end argument. No such thing. Argument is an argument.
Interpretation is only empty if it yields no fruit. I often learn spiritual truth from mundane everyday activities. But yes. Their must be balance. Know the text. Learn the meaning of the text. Gain insight. But! Insight itself when subjective is nothing but personal interpretation no? As long as it yields fruit!
This is why the saying, “their is a fine line between gentian and insanity” is true. Because the subjective reality is a slippery slope.

#102

Actually no. Insight comes from seeing the reality of a thing as it really is. Remember the crystal or mirror that is the reflection of reality? Interpretation of the sort we are talking about here is coloring the crystal, preventing us from seeing the true reflection. Many people have tried to give their own ideas credibility by interpreting the yoga sutras in a way that supports them. I am opposed to this.

Ultimately though, we are all speaking from ignorance. The discussion is about what do the sutras really say, as opposed to what is the true nature of reality. If any of us really knew the answer, chances are we wouldn’t be having this argument.

The world according to the Svetasvetara Upanishad may be a truer reflection of reality than what we find in the yoga sutras. What I’m saying is, don’t get them mixed up.

#103

[QUOTE=Avatar186;75515]
This is why the saying, “their is a fine line between gentian and insanity” is true. Because the subjective reality is a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I never heard that one. As far as I can find out, gentian is a plant.

#104

I would like to you remind you, you are the only one on this forum who has been officially banned for 3 months for making personal attacks where you called a Hindu member on this forum, “a cow pissing drinking dot head” Since your return, you have made more personal attacks and now you are on your last warning, and if you receive another you will be permanently banned.

Try being “mildly critical” with me again and face the consequences.

David never takes sides, I know because he does not act upon all of my reported posts. He acts only one posts where he finds in his judgement the rules have been breached. I have no control over his judgement. If the moderator of this forum thinks you are in breach of his rules then you probably are, and it is probably not “mild”

I think you are one of the most disrespectful members I have ever seen on a discussion forum. How you openly and defiantly criticize the administration and its judgements, and despite receiving warnings and bans mock it. On any other forum you would have been banned a long time ago. You are lucky David is very fair and tolerant.

Surya Deva is well aware that I have in-depth knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, and in fact that my knowledge surpasses his own, yet he attempts to create the false impression that I lack basic scholarship.

Out of you and me, I am the one who has a formal professional academic qualification in the subject of philosophy and a formal dissertation in Samkhya-Yoga. You can shout as much as you want on how superior your knowledge is here, but it is a clear fact that in the professional academic world I would be considered the one who is actually qualified.

Your knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga is amateur, it is not based on actual reading of the scholarship and literature on the subject. None of your essays and works have gone through any peer-review(mine have, and I have been awarded with distinction) You were not even aware of the foremost scholar Gerald Larson until I pointed him out.
Many of the statements you have made about Samkhya-Yoga contain obviously gaps in understanding and is the result of poor and uncritical reading.

I don’t consider you an equal to debate with. You are in a position to learn from me on Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, not to debate with me. I am the closest to an expert this forum has on Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, and if there is anybody here who has higher qualifications than me on this subject, I will have no problem conceding to them. There is actually one member who has written a book on AI and Vedanta, who consulted with me on this forum as a part of this research for his book and he returned recently and mentioned me directly.

I grow tired of your utter disrespect for my scholarship in the subject of Samkhya-Yoga, but I don’t have to worry because I am actually formally recognized as qualified in this area, and you are not. Shout and kick all you want.

#105

On the Yoga Sutras:

For me it is a no-brainer what it means. Having read now several dozens of translations of the Yoga Sutras and scrutinized the Sanskrit and cross-referenced with other philosophical texts in the subject and several dozen commentaries. The scholarship on Yoga philosophy is not in the dark as Asuri here seems to be suggesting.

Asuri seems to like creating controversy where there is none. For example, his made up conspiracy theory that the Hindus actively suppressed Samkhya. I still have no idea where on Earth he got this idea from. Who has suggested this? Which scholar? Any names? Come on Asuri, what are your references? Whoever has said this seems to have no idea Samkhya is Hindu itself. None of the scholarship I have read consider Samkhya to be a non-Hindu philosophy.

In fact why not reference scholarly resources directly:

The compound “Hindu philosophy” is ambiguous. Minimally it stands for a tradition of Indian philosophical thinking. However, it could be interpreted as designating one comprehensive philosophical doctrine, shared by all Hindu thinkers. The term “Hindu philosophy” is often used loosely in this philosophical or doctrinal sense, but this usage is misleading. There is no single, comprehensive philosophical doctrine shared by all Hindus that distinguishes their view from contrary philosophical views associated with other Indian religious movements such as Buddhism or Jainism on issues of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics or cosmology. Hence, historians of Indian philosophy typically understand the term “Hindu philosophy” as standing for the collection of philosophical views that share a textual connection to certain core Hindu religious texts (the Vedas), and they do not identify “Hindu philosophy” with a particular comprehensive philosophical doctrine.

Hindu philosophy, thus understood, not only includes the philosophical doctrines present in Hindu texts of primary and secondary religious importance, but also the systematic philosophies of the Hindu schools: Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Pūrvamīmāṃsā and Vedānta. In total, Hindu philosophy has made a sizable contribution to the history of Indian philosophy and its role has been far from static: Hindu philosophy was influenced by Buddhist and Jain philosophies, and in turn Hindu philosophy influenced Buddhist philosophy in India in its later stages. In recent times, Hindu philosophy evolved into what some scholars call “Neo-Hinduism,” which can be understood as an Indian response to the perceived sectarianism and scientism of the West. Hindu philosophy thus has a long history, stretching back from the second millennia B.C.E. to the present.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/

I have emboldened the relevant text for this discussion. I have already stated this in previous posts here, but as Asuri disrespects anything I state, I have had to post what an actual fully qualified real expert in Indian philosophy writes.

There is no single philosophical doctrine that sums up Hinduism. Hinduism is made up various schools of Hindu philosophy, that have various views. The schools of Hindu philosophy include Samkhya and Yoga. Samkhya-Yoga are NOT non-Hindu philosophies, like Buddhism and Jainism are. In fact Samkhya and Yoga both accept the authority of the scriptures of Hindusim and appeal to them directly. Samkhya-Yoga philosophy underpins much of Hinduism.

#106

Well I suppose I have to point out that you are the only one who actually has been banned from the Hindu forum. They wouldn’t tolerate your nonsense over there and it’s incomprehensible to me why David allows it here. You continue to misquote and misrepresent what I say and attack me personally every day and frankly I’m sick of it.

Thank you for making it clear exactly where you are coming from. You consider yourself to be the professional and me to be the amateur, so it’s really a burr in your britches when an unwashed ignorant fool such as myself is able to stand against you and win.

You are correct I have absolute disdain for your claimed achievements, considering all of the nonsense you’ve posted on this forum. By the way a dissertation is a project that is written in order to obtain a Phd degree here in the United States, so your misuse of the word casts a lot of doubt on your credentials. It clear that you are no Phd. You’ve been asked several times to validate your claims and have refused, so your credentials really are meaningless. If you are such a professional, why on earth are you wasting so much of your time posting on an internet forum under an assumed name?