|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Neel,
Taimni also noted the inverted sequence of the sutras in his commentaries.
He says that the Sutras were written essentially as a shorten reminder for
experienced yogis to memorize, assuming that they already understood the
concepts from other exposure. In discussing Samhadi, he recommended
sutras from book 3, then book 1, then book 2, if I remember correctly.
Bay Guy
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Brother Bay Guy:
Taimin is wrong. Sutras are not written for reminder to Yogis. Sutras are written in short form because sutra means the short form. Now, they are written short so that one can memorize the entire understanding in small space, which is the memory in this case. Later, when one studies them, or teaches the philosophy, one car reference them as needed.
Also, there is a very logical and correct reason why they are arranged in the way they are in 4 chapters. It is not correct to study 3rd first, then another etc. Though, in one particular case, such a study may not be harmful. This arrangement, we can address at another time. But, please note that they are arranged purposefully that way.
Peace
Neel |
|
| |
|
| Dear BG: I must with apology state that I did not mean directly comment on Taimini as I have not studied him. But, if that is what he wrote about arrangement of study, that is not correct. That is what I wish to state.
Regards
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| I'll answer the humanist question. First, the official definition (from the American Humanist Association):
"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as part of nature and holds that values - be they religious, ethical, social, or political - have their source in human nature, experience, and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny."
In other words, we believe that caring for each other (and that includes all humans on the planet) in the here and now is more important than worrying about the next life - whatever that may be.
I have no problem reconciling my humanist beliefs with my yoga practice. To me, god is a concept that represents the best within ourselves. I find a strong connection between the ethical values of humanism and the yamas and niyamas.
Of course, this returns us to the troublesome issue of Isvarapranidhana - submission to the highest divine being. As I Humanist, I accept the possibility that there could be a higher power - but I refuse to accept that notion on faith alone. During practice, I imagine Isvara to be that potential greatness within myself. Perhaps over time my beliefs will change. I'm open to that possibility.
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I've been thinking about it for a while. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-06 10:55 PM
Dear Brother Bay Guy:
Taimin is wrong. Sutras are not written for reminder to Yogis. Sutras are written in short form because sutra means the short form. Now, they are written short so that one can memorize the entire understanding in small space, which is the memory in this case. Later, when one studies them, or teaches the philosophy, one car reference them as needed.
Peace
Neel
Dear Brother Neel,
I may not be quoting Taimni with complete accuracy, since I am working from memory.
His main point is that those who originally learned the sutras were not basing their
understanding of yoga philosophy upon the sutras alone. They were familiar with
many other texts and teachings. Thus, the short verses would be easily understood
by them to imply many other things that are not directly stated in the sutras.
Bay Guy
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
 
| Bay Guy - good point. I think we often fail to see the sutras or other works within the context of their time and literature current with that time - including the Bible. |
|
| |
|
| Yes, Brother BG:
His point and your is correct. Sutras are NEVER to be understood only from the Sutras. This applies to all Sutras. Sutras are written short only for condensing the space and memorization. Now, when one studies them, one has to have a resource who can comment on them to give the correct understanding. This applies to all the Sutras. Also, there are subtle differences in certain philosophies and that is why one needs a good teacher. Others mess it up as I wrote in the past, for example, 'yoga is stopping of waves in the mind stuff'. !!!
Also, generally sutras are NEVERoriginal work they are summarization of previous understanding.
And, as I wrote previously Patanjali Yoga Sutras are summarization of Advaita Vedanta (Non Dualistic Philosophy). Many world famous commentators has wrongly commented on them as Dualistic, and also Patanjali is NOT a Samkhya Philosophy as told by many world famous commentators. Of course, there is a common overlap between Patanjali and Samkhya. But, Patanjali is summarization of Advaita Vedanta.
Namaste.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-07 11:19 PM
And, as I wrote previously Patanjali Yoga Sutras are summarization of Advaita Vedanta (Non Dualistic Philosophy).
Namaste.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Can you recommend a good overview of Advaita Vedanta --- or is that simply Patanjali?
|
|
| |
|
| Dear BG:
No, Patanjali is only summarization of Advaita Vedanta for Practical Purpose which means it contains Practical Aspect completely and scientifically, which can never be skipped by any path which is correct towards Self or God realization.
But, Patanjali gives Principle part of AV only as much as is necessary.
For real summarization of AV, you can refer to 1. Vedantasaarasangraha of Shree Adi Shankaracharya 2. Brahmasutras of Shree Veda Vyasa. 3. Commentary on Upanishadas and Bhagavadgita by Adi Shankaracharya.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Neel.
|
|
| |
|
| i consider myself an atheist b/c i dont believe in god, the devil, afterlife, miracles, etc.....
however this doesnt ever come up in yoga class. so its not a conflict for me...
what i do "believe" in is respecting all life (i guess a taoist view) and that there is an energy in the earth and every living thing connecting us, and if we hurt the earth or an animal or a tree, etc, we are hurting ourselves, and to me thats the feel i get when i do yoga, im respecting myself..
but i dont consider my views a religion of any sort, philosophy maybe....
but i have made some major life changes at the same time i started doing yoga at a studio., becoming a vegetarian, not buying products tested on animals, etc.
i think we have a long way to go in this country and world, and in my opinion religion just gets in the way, and yes there are great christians, buddhists, muslims etc. but i can respect anyone that judges others, and thats my real offense to chrisitanity, i guess specifically catholicism
not to start a debate here, but what i meant is that if we all just take the mindedness of yoga and apply it to life, we would be in a better state |
|
| |
|
| Dear osujen25:
I kind of like what you say above. But, that is considering 'Problem Aspect' of social life. In other words, you are saying that let us do Mindfulness Of Yoga, because the other things mentioned by you create problems. However, the real aspect of any science is Pure Knowledge which automatically includes the truth, joy, happiness, good of all, etc. In this Real Aspect of life, when you study Yoga (may be in the future), you can not ignore the Aspect of God, called as Ishwara. Now, God is having different definitions in different religions. However, in Yoga, God has a specific understanding. And, all that you like you said above, such as energy and what not, they are part of the God in Yoga. So, you can never escape from concept of God, if you comprehend the entire Yoga. For this, you have to study Yoga Philosophy.
Anyway, I am not criticizing you, I am only making a comment with observation.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| i totally understand what you are saying, i personally dont consider it a religion, but yes it is i guess, an energy is an energy. but i feel it is just life! i dont really know what Yoga specifically says/describes. so if my belief is it then great!
i know sometimes i feel mankind is beyond hope and would rather save the trees and animals, but i do love mankind, and the people that are good (and bad, i guess b/c i dont hate!) but it is frustrating.
i know personally sometimes when i do yoga just the namaste at the end gets me emotional, so if thats the religion side, then im all for it. i just dont believe there is some person sitting up there. or some end point we are going for. life's a journey
namaste |
|
| |
|
| No Dear Osujen: Be assured, there is NO person sitting up there. Why would he/she sit up there? That person is everywhere, in each and everything here. In you, in me and all around. However, to know that person, we have to do Yoga. And, that is called as:
sarvam khalu idam brahma. tat tvam asi. Vedas - 5000+ Before Christ.
I think you are on the right track.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-29 9:58 PM
No Dear Osujen: Be assured, there is NO person sitting up there. Why would he/she sit up there? That person is everywhere, in each and everything here. In you, in me and all around. However, to know that person, we have to do Yoga. And, that is called as:
sarvam khalu idam brahma. tat tvam asi. Vedas - 5000+ Before Christ.
It's all right here, right now, waiting for us to find it.
Om nama Sivaya.....Namaste
 |
|
| |
|
| Hello everyone,
This is a nice discussion.
I think both Yoga and Vedanta (there are many kinds of Vedanta but I'm sticking to one style of understanding), in some form or other, can really be explained in a simple way that an atheist can understand and even relate with, given some open-mindedness. I will try to explain in a way that I think can help some people think about the basis of the tradition, without preconcieved notions.
As such, the main question that must be asked is: "Who am I?"
The person, you, by definition is the subject, not the object. So you are the entity that watches, that witnesses.
So lets look at some theories about who you could be:
Am I my body? Look at your body, be aware of it. You are the witness being aware of the body, so you can't be the body. There is someone there who is aware of the body, and that must be you!
Am I my mind? This is a theory that more people take. But what is the mind? Does the mind have a shape? Does the mind have a colour? If you watch your mind for a while, you see that it is just a groups of thoughts and mental activity. Is there anything left of your mind when you take out your mental activity? If you look, you are unlikely to find anything, so the mind is just a proccess. In that sense mind exists only in time, because over time different thoughts may come, different proccesses but thats it. You cannot be this group of mental proccesses because you can witness these. So this means that you are witness.
So what is the witness? The witness in general is the very principle of awareness. Yoga says that you are pure Awareness. You are the witness of all that happens to your body, mind, etc...
Now this witness, you, have a sense of being, an "I-am" sense, a self-awareness. According to Yoga and Vedanta This is your Soul, your Self.
Now according to the Upanishads, You are Brahman, you are not just "your" Self, but the Universal Self.
The reason for this is actually quite simple. The Self-Awareness itself, your true nature, is identical to the true nature of anyone else. You might argue "no, because this person has different experiences, feelings, etc..." But all these come after the "I am". "I am this, I am that, I am the person who whom this happened", etc... the this and that comes after the "I am". The pure sense of "I am", being itself, free from anything additional, that is the same in every person. So when I get to the root of who I am, it is exactly the same as who are you are. Thus the Self is not something personal, it is universal, its Brahman.
Now yoga holds that when you know you are pure awareness, this brings enormous peace and joy. You have already had a taste of this as you practice yoga, because you know that as you practice you become more peaceful and happy. Now if one takes this to the extreme, if one is perfected yogi, what kind of peace and joy do you think there would be? Its unimaginable! You can also count on the testimony of mystics from all traditions, whether Hindu, Christian, Sufi, Buddhist, etc... So this the reason why you want to intuitively and experientially know your true nature, because of the inexpressible peace it brings.
So your true nature, this awareness, is the same as God, the universal consciousness. So in essence you are trying to find your trying to know your "own face". To remind you to do this, and to make it easier for you to stay on the path, you can personify your true nature. So you can choose a deity that you can identify with, but understand that this deity is simply your own true nature. By being devoted to it, you are asking your own nature to reveal itself and so this is the same effect as yoga. With yoga you remove your defilements to come closer to your true nature and with devotion you ask your true nature to come closer to you.
According to modern science, a table is energy and a chair is energy. So why do they look different? It because when there is a certain arrangement of energy, the mind cognizes it as a chair and when there is a another arrangement of energy, the mind cognizes it as a table. So the world as you know it, all the objects in it, everything you ever see, comes into being when energy meets awareness. You might be shocked, but this is exactly what is held by Hindu philosophy, in particular Tantric philosophy. The primordial energy is Shakti, and when this Shakti interacts with Shiva (consciousness), the rest of the world starts to appear. It is the same in Yoga (from Samkhya) too, the original matter (Prakriti) interacts with Purusha (consciousness) to produce the world. So the principle of God as creator makes more sense now. However, Tantric philosophy goes one steps further and states that the primordial energy and consciousness are one.
So in this sense it is the awareness (God) which is the same as your true nature that really allows for the creation of the universe as we know it. Thus, we say that God is the creator.
There is much more and this is already a very long post, but when one looks at the way the tradition deals with these matters it is really very logical and rational - there is no superstition involved as far as the most basic tenents of practice go. If you can identify with what I say I suggest you choose a deity to represent your true, enlightened nature and remember it everyone once in a while as a way of keeping in touch with your true nature,
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for a truly remarkable explanation, Rishi. All I can add to that is Amen,.....or is it OM?
Namaste |
|
| |
|
| Very well written, belovedofthegod.
Does your interpretation also reconcile Ramanuja's dualistic philosophy which apparently BKS Iyengar subscribes to.
Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Oh, this is curious...I had the sense that Iyengar followed Patanjali
in a NONDUALISTIC philosophy. I've been reading his commentary
on the Sutras, and I did catch a dualistic point of view. Can you clarify
this comment?
|
|
| |
|
| Dear HotYogi,
"Does your interpretation also reconcile Ramanuja's dualistic philosophy which apparently BKS Iyengar subscribes to."
Well Ramanuja philosophy is considered a modified non-dualism in that it does posit only existent. The world is sort of the body of the Absolute. I'm not sure what BKS Iyengar subscribes to (I haven't read any work by him) but I geuss some for of classical Advaita Vedanta (Sankaran). As such I don't think the two can be reconciled as systems and they are meant for a different mode of practice. In Advaita Vedanta, mystical experience is very important but Ramanuja is purely theistic and his system is one that goes with devotional practice (according to the Sri Vaisnavas, Ramanuja was the incarnation of Lakshman). What I say in my post (which is very general to different styles of philosophy, it was more a mode of approach than a technical precise philosophy) is compatible with Sankara's philosophy and Advaita in general, but not with Ramanuja as the emphasis here is very different, the goal is to go to paradise after death.
In the Upanishads we have both a theistic conception of the Ultimate and an impersonal one and Sankara took up the impersonal one (however, he was devotee and created room for devotion in his system) whilst Ramanuja took up the theistic one.
"Oh, this is curious...I had the sense that Iyengar followed Patanjali
in a NONDUALISTIC philosophy. I've been reading his commentary
on the Sutras, and I did catch a dualistic point of view. Can you clarify
this comment?"
Very often the Sutras are interpreted in light of non-dual Vedanta, it is one of the problems with a lot of interpretation. The Sutras are part of Yoga Darshana whoose philosophy is basically Samkhya Darshana. Samkhya is usually described as radical dualism. There are two principles, Prakriti (matter or nature) and Purusha (consciousness) and their interaction creates all in the universe starting from the Buddhi (the intellect, or the higher mind), which can be likened to a higher mind. The problem is that Purusha has forgotten who he is and thinks he is some form of prakriti. So the purpose of yoga is actually to seperate Purusha and Prakriti so Purusha can become liberated. In yoga too, this system is the same. There is an Ishwara (Lord) but not as a creator God, but a great purusha who is free from afflictions, has the highest ability in omniscience (I believe omnipotence isn't included though), untouched by time, etc... So it could be some form of God, but it could also be a Master, or some other being. A great person, literally!
There is of course scope for what people would call non-dual experience in Yoga, but the actual system is dualistic,
Regards.
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks Belovedofthe god.
Does that mean Patanjali's sutras reflect a dualistic philosophy by separating ishwara and purusha.
Doestn't advaita vedanta say that when purusha realizes his self by shedding all the outward koshas, then he merges with the supreme consciousness while the dualists looking at the same coin from the other side say the soul is libereted but is a distinct entity from the supreme being.
In your view, in which category do the yoga sutras fall? |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | http://www.yoga.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18214&start=1
We had some discussion of dualism and nondualism in the thread above.
The sense at the time was that Patanjali's sutras are non-dualistic. |
|
| |
|
| Hello HotYogi,
"Does that mean Patanjali's sutras reflect a dualistic philosophy by separating ishwara and purusha."
The dualism is not between Ishwara and Purusha, Ishwara is a type of Purusha. The duality is between Purusha and Prakriti, consciousness and matter.
"Doestn't advaita vedanta say that when purusha realizes his self by shedding all the outward koshas, then he merges with the supreme consciousness while the dualists looking at the same coin from the other side say the soul is libereted but is a distinct entity from the supreme being.
In your view, in which category do the yoga sutras fall?"
Neither, these are both Vedantic positions (one is dualistic and the other isn't). But Yoga darshana isn't a Vedantic position, it is based on Samkhya. There is no "Supreme Being" in that sense (Ishwara is just a very special purusha, and doesn't bestow grace, create the universe, etc... just an object of devotion and contemplation). For the Yoga Sutras liberation is when the witness (Purusha) knows that he is the witness and that he is not Prakriti (he is not the elements, not the mind, not the intellect).
"We had some discussion of dualism and nondualism in the thread above.
The sense at the time was that Patanjali's sutras are non-dualistic."
This is a very common view and it is as a result of nearly all orthodox (non-tantrika) Swamis, Yogis, etc... being Advaita Vedantins. They reinterpret the yogasutra in light of their own philosophy and make it seem like this has always been the case. In fact, Yoga-Darshana's worldview is structurally identical to Samkhya and Vedantins of every kind (including and especially Sankara) have been strongly criticizing Samkhya in the past,
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks.
How did the orthodox position against samkhya evolve? Did sankara criticize it becasue of it's theistic foundation? |
|
| |
|
| Hi,
"How did the orthodox position against samkhya evolve? Did sankara criticize it becasue of it's theistic foundation?"
While Yoga has room for Ishwara (though in limited capacity), Samkhya is purely atheistic. Criticism was a prefectly normal thing in India, debates always had an important role amongst the spiritual learned. All the Hindu schools debated with the Buddhist schools, there were inter-debate in Hindu schools (even within Vedanta, Ramanuja criticised lot of Sankara's position for instance) and Buddhist schools.
There are some serious problems in the Samkhya philosophy, for one thing it cannot account really account for how the Purusha came to be identified with Prakriti if it was originally omniscient. Another problem is that if all Purushas are pure awareness, then how can we say there are many Purushas? Whats the difference between the various Purushas?
As for the orthodox position evolved, the orthodox position is based on the original Vedanta darshana. There are six darshanas, or systems of thought from the classical Hindu period. Samkhya is one, Vedanta another and Yoga yet another. Another important school was the Nyaya who was responsible for systemazing and arranging much of Indian logic. All the darshanas are based on the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. The Purva Mimamsa school focuses largely on the ritualistic texts such as the Brahmanas and the ritual portion of the Vedas. Samkhya and Vedanta are both largely based on the Upanishads.
Of course keep in mind that while scriptural testimony was one source of information, it was by no means the major one; the systems used scripture when helpful but wern't bound by it. This to an extent allowed for a very dynamic tradition of new philosophies emmerging for a very long time without being considered heresies, getting prosecuted, etc...
Regards. |
|
| |
Yoga and Atheism
