Controversial Post
I moved this over from LinkedIn to share because it has diverse opinions which are interesting for showing various viewpoints:
Yoga way
There are two sides of life . One is silent and the other is dynamic . Silent is 100% Karam free . Dynamic is 100 % Karam .
We are biologically same but different because of our abilities . What is the purpose of life . Who am I . Sages says to know yourself and to live blissful life - yoga is the way .
But today yoga is .........gymnastic . Billion dollar industry . Different types of yoga etc .
What is yoga way of life - it is in your Karam . You are the driver of you own body , drive it with responsibility . Freedom is responsibility. Will you take responsibility of being free . Free yourself . Integrate yourself as whole . Drive yourself freely . You are not alone . Watch your breath if you thing you exist alone . Yoga is the way
-
-
devaPriya Yogini ~ varun ahlawat Krishna in fact did say souls.
-
varun ahlawat devaPriya Yogini ~Krishna soul is immovable , unborn , unending , eternal , unchangeable . There is no others . Know yourself .
-
Iwona Roslonek, MEcon, CMA CPA The driver is our buddhi = our conscience. Living responsibly means being governed by love in every moment. Vegan in daily consumption. Friendly in our relationships. Caring about Mother Nature. Being in rapture with Life. Protecting Life. Life purpose is living. Manifesting Love. Oozing joy.
-
varun ahlawat Iwona Roslonek, MEcon, CMA CPA beautiful words ....full of love . Slightly differ .......buddhi is rein (rope) - hold it with love .
-
Raj Kumar Dham I am fully enjoying this beautiful exchange of thoughts about Yoga Way .I have read the Yoga Way article written by devaPriya Yogini ~also it is beautiful.Both varun ahlawat and devaPriya Yogini ~are right as both are giving different perspective of Yoga Way.IwonaRoslonek has also added the third perspective .I congratulate all of them for joining this discussion on Yoga Way and sharing their wonderful thoughts .I request more people to join this discussion about Yoga Way.
If we look at the concept of Panchkoshas ( five sheeths ) which is the central theme or concept in Yoga - Physical,Mental ,Energy ( Prana) ,Intellect ( vijayan) and Ananda ( bliss's) ;we get five prospectiv of Yoga making it a Whole .Yoga Way is based on this Five Koshas Philosophy . Through physical, Mental, Energy , Intellect we move to Ananda ( bliss) . -
Michael Beloved souls not soul - There is more than one atma according to the Gita. Some other text may say something else. Some other yogi or rishi may say something else but Gita does not say only one soul. Please stop warping the Gita. It is not necessary to use the Gita to support other ideas. Those other views can stand on their own premises and evidence.
-
Michael Beloved śrībhagavānuvāca
aśocyānanvaśocastvaṁ
prajñāvādāṁśca bhāṣase
gatāsūnagatāsūṁśca
nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ (2.11)
śrī-bhagavān — the Blessed Lord; uvāca — said; aśocyān — that which should be regretted; anvaśocas — mourned; tvaṁ — you; prajñāvādāṁś — intelligent statements; ca — and; bhāṣase — you express; gatāsūn — departed souls; agatāsūṁś — those not departed; ca — and; nānuśocanti = na — not + anuśocanti — mourn; paṇḍitāḥ — educated men
The Blessed Lord said: You mourned for that which should not be regretted. And you expressed intelligent statements, but the educated persons mourn neither for the embodied or departed souls. (2.11) -
Michael Beloved Soul is singular when soul is being used as translation for atma or for jivatma. Krishna is a specific soul and so is Arjuna. They are eternally individuals:
na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayamataḥ param (2.12)
na — no; tv (tu) — in fact; eva — alone; aham — I; jātu — ever; na — not; āsam — I did exist; na — nor; tvaṁ — you; neme = na — nor + ime — these; jana-adhipāḥ — rulers of the people; na — not; caiva — and indeed; na — nor; bhaviṣyāmaḥ — we will exist; sarve — all; vayam — we; ataḥ - from now; param — onwards
There was never a time when I did not exist, nor you nor these rulers of the people. Nor will we cease to exist from now onwards. (2.12) -
varun ahlawat In illusion we call souls .
As waves , foam, bubbles are not different from water . So the universe emanating from the self is not different from it . That is why you cannot coexist with God . You can exist only in his absence . Everything is incarnation of self . But intellectual loves to separate. They will separate because they compare . Soul is incomparable . Inseparable . You are the God ( atma) . Realize yourself -
varun ahlawat Existence is one . The body is the visible soul and the soul is the invisible body . In illusion we called souls .
-
-
-
-
varun ahlawat in chapter 2 .11 as said by Michael Beloved above ---- the correct words are Thou hast grieved for those that should not be grieved for, yet thou speakest words of wisdom. The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.
now where it is use as souls , people did interpretation their own , ask any sanskrit teacher about the word soul here -2.11
hindi / sanskrit
अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे।
गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिताः॥२- ११॥
जिन के लिये शोक नहीं करना चाहिये उनके लिये तुम शोक कर रहे
हो और बोल तुम बुद्धीमानों की तरहँ रहे हो। ज्ञानी लोग न उन के लिये शोक करते है
जो चले गऐ और न उन के लिये जो हैं॥ -
varun ahlawat now finally -
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः।
न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम्॥२- १२॥
न तुम्हारा न मेरा और न ही यह राजा जो दिख रहे हैं इनका कभी नाश होता है॥
और यह भी नहीं की हम भविष्य मे नहीं रहेंगे॥
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति॥२- १३॥
आत्मा जैसे देह के बाल, युवा यां बूढे होने पर भी वैसी ही रहती है
उसी प्रकार देह का अन्त होने पर भी वैसी ही रहती है॥बुद्धीमान लोग इस पर
व्यथित नहीं होते॥ -
varun ahlawat 2.20
He is not born nor does He ever die; after having been, He again ceases not to be. Unborn, eternal, changeless and ancient, He is not killed when the body is killed,
Vedaavinaashinam nityam ya enam ajam avyayam;
Katham sa purushah paartha kam ghaatayati hanti kam -
varun ahlawat Raj Kumar Dham sir that which is changless cannot be souls . it is not two .
om namaha shivaya -
Michael Beloved varun ahlawat, Several Sanskrit terms are used but the context is the persons whom Arjuna expressed grief about. Those persons were on the battlefield physically. Krishna begins by using dehinam for the term. See my translation attached of the first place where Krishna indicated that. I am not attached to the word soul and I hardly used that in my translation. One of your hang-ups is that you are quick to jump the gun as soon as you see an English word because you are one of those persons who feel that English is not sufficient for Sanskrit equivalents but I did not find that to be true in translating several Sanskrit works. The reason is simple. If the English speaking population has experienced what a Sanskrit terms describes then the English language can express the subject of concern. But if someone in India is unaware of the meanings (not common meaning in India) of English words, then that person will feel that English is insufficient.
-
Michael Beloved For instance let us consider the word brahman which is central to the Upanishads. Whatever that is, whatever that experience is, the rishis address it by that term. Now if someone proves that such experience cannot be had by any of the English speaking peoples, then I will agree that no English man can describe that term in his language. But if it is a fact that some English person can experience that, then those people may have a word for it and that qualifies them to use their term.
You for example speak negatively of the word concentration as any part of meditation, but I doubt if you have got a large English dictionary and have carefully checked on the many meanings of that word and found that every meaning is irrelevant. English in my view is quite fit to deal with Sanskrit and I say this after translating several books:
Bhagavad Gita
Anu Gita
Uddhava Gita
Hatha Yoga Pradipika
Markandeya Samasya
Yoga Sutras -
Michael Beloved And these are not just translations but translations based on over 40 years of ashtanga yoga practice in this body with lives times of yoga practice in India prior.
Here I give the first reference to whatever you choose to call soul. I am not attached to the word soul. We can use any word, even apple or star, provided we agree to call what Krishna spoke of in relation to what Arjuna lamented about killing. I can talk to you sensibly if you stick with the context but if you run off to use the terms with some other information, I will not follow your conversation because to me that is distortion. -
Michael Beloved Gita verses which began the use of terms for what Arjuna lamented about:
na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayamataḥ param (2.12)
na — no; tv (tu) — in fact; eva — alone; aham — I; jātu — ever; na — not; āsam — I did exist; na — nor; tvaṁ — you; neme = na — nor + ime — these; jana-adhipāḥ — rulers of the people; na — not; caiva — and indeed; na — nor; bhaviṣyāmaḥ — we will exist; sarve — all; vayam — we; ataḥ - from now; param — onwards
There was never a time when I did not exist, nor you nor these rulers of the people. Nor will we cease to exist from now onwards. (2.12)
dehino'sminyathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntaraprāptir
dhīrastatra na muhyati (2.13) -
Michael Beloved dehinaḥ — of the embodied soul; asmin — in this; yathā — as; dehe — in the body; kaumāraṁ — in childhood; yauvanam — in youth; jarā — in old age; tathā — so in sequence; deha — body; antara — another; prāptiḥ — acquirement; dhīraḥ — wise person; tatra — on this topic; na — not; muhyati — is confused
As the embodied soul endures childhood, youth and old age, so another body is acquired in sequence. The wise person is not confused on this topic. (2.13) -
Michael Beloved Krishna begins about the physical body and what inhabits that physical body which will be displaced if that body is killed. If you wish to terms that as rabbit, then we can continue with an agreement that soul is the wrong term and rabbit is the connect nomenclature.
-
Martin Gustavsson The non-action in meditation is also creating karma. It must be compared to the good action that is lost whilst meditating. On the other hand is action before a proper level of enlightenment through meditation almost a guarantee of ineffectivness. Also Buddha acted, even if he finally did give politics up. I am not quite sure he did the right thing, but without his choice my life would probably not be as courageus and happy as it is, but who knows, maybe he then would have been replaced by another monk as the figurehead. Anyway, my heart forbids me to quit with political action for the benefit of nature and future generations. I hope you one day find your hearts and enlightened minds in meditation and decide to join me.
-
-
-
-
Sunil Vidyarthi Amazing how the same words are causing so much confusion thousands of years later. Btw words like deha, dharana, dhyana are still in use by many dervative languages of sanskrit.
-
Michael Beloved Martin Gustavsson, I wish to confirm that non-action is also a type of action. In the West this is called an omission. For instance if a mechanic works on a vehicle and notices that an important bolt on the suspension is missing, and he takes no action to rectify that, his non-action or omission may result in the car owner's death.
Many Indian Swamis tout non-action as if it is not productive of consequences and that is a shallow but very convenient way of looking at life. It assures some devotees (followers) that if they are detached, the matter ends there but this is another simplistic approach which sells easily to persons who do not think deeply and do not understand the long reach of material nature, of how it swings back at the individual in his or her future or future life. -
Michael Beloved Non-action is action. Actually there is more than one verse in the Bhagavad Gita which clarifies this. Arjuna was simultaneously encouraged not to act on his own behalf but to act as Krishna's agent and that was considered by Krishna to be Arjuna's detached (vairagya) action where the consequences were to be managed by Krishna as the Central Person in the Universal Form. Was that the actual situation?
-
varun ahlawat Michael Beloved it is not Sanskrit vs English . Even in India many people don't know Sanskrit . Even people who are scholar in Sanskrit debate and it keeps going on and on .
It is not the who is right . It what is absolute. Absolute is changless , unborn , unending , eternal , deathless . That's why I said that which is changless can't be soul . Soul is not relative . But it's forms are . That is the mystery of life . What is death . Why is karam , if it is changless . That's the secret people looking for . What is death and why living . Who is playing with us . Are we slave .
Your problem is you think you know everything . But the truth is no one knows everything . We are all seekers , some finding life and some creating life . Some of us achieving and some contributing . Krishna want arjun to contribute - saying body dies but soul do not . And says Soul is immutable, changless, eternal . -
varun ahlawat Correction - It is ....... can't be souls
-
varun ahlawat Martin Gustavsson non action is another word - that discussion never ends .
Non action is yogic way of life . It is detachment . Karam creates akaram (non- action ) and karam creates karam . Non action is not good karam . It is absolute . Because good and bad are relative . Many people interpreted it as not doing . Akarama takes you towards emptiness . Buddha settled mind is also this emptiness . The fundamental principle of Buddha teaching is independent origin - this Akaram is same as emptiness of Buddha . We called this shunya ( empty ) or absolute and we also called it full or wholeness . This shunya and full is same - the absolute . The smallest part of matter is not alone .Some say paanch mahabhooth ( five elements) Matter don't exist alone . It exists in forms . But soul exist alone . That is why Akarama. Mystery of life . In my post I wrote silence is 100% karam free . More precisely it is Dharam which is 100% Karam free . This 100% Karam free is because of karam creates akarama ( non action ) . Krishna Dharam is absolute . You and I are same but differ only because of form BUT we don't see it because we achieve more and contribute less . Offering is the way . The yogic way .
NAMASTE -
Mia Munshi Very well written Valun Ahlawat. Thank you for this sharing.
-
varun ahlawat Mia Munshi thanks for your wise and lovely words . Regards
-
Michael Beloved varun ahlawat, You are saying that I know everything and that is a problem. It may be for you because that is your opinion. If you check my posts at this site over the years you will find that I relate experiences I had during pranayama and meditation practice and I refer to standard text like the Gita and remain within the context of those text. You are sensitive about this because I pointed out your misappropriation of the Gita. That is understandable. No one likes to be corrected. It is always irritating. So it is natural to lash back. When it is convenient you say that books are nothing and when it is convenient you pull up books as evidence. This is inconsistent. So my critique of this is irritating. I understand.
-
varun ahlawat Michael Beloved.whatever thanks for everything and all discussion we had . It was just awesome .
-
Michael Beloved varun ahlawat, Nothing was meant as an insult to you personally and the seemingly aggressive responses which Raj hinted at were a matter of debate or public forum. I may be accused of being too candid and in a world of diplomats, it is likely that candid people will be arrested and deported.
Remember when you cited a story about Valmiki? Were you annoyed because I asked
-
-
Point made but fortunately we have texts like Gita which relieves us of the impossible task of having to know everything. Here is some more:
====================
-
-
Michael Beloved varun ahlawat, Nothing was meant as an insult to you personally and the seemingly aggressive responses which Raj hinted at were a matter of debate or public forum. I may be accused of being too candid and in a world of diplomats, it is likely that candid people will be arrested and deported.
Remember when you cited a story about Valmiki? Were you annoyed because I asked for clarification about that person, being that I never saw Valmiki being described in that way in the original Ramayana?
Once years ago I was at a yagna in Guyana. It was a big event conducted by one of the main pundits in the country. He gave some story about Rama saying that it was from the Ramayana. When he was finished, for some reason or the other, he asked me to speak.
I merely asked him which Ramayana he quoted from because I had never saw his information in Valmiki; and I was interested to know if it was there and I just missed it. -
Michael Beloved After a while, he took the microphone again and explained to the attendees that he quoted from a Ramayana rendering given by a famous pundit in India and that it was not from the Valmiki Ramayana.
So according to rules of etiquette what should I have done? Remained quiet about it even though it was contrary to what was in the Valmiki text which this same Pundit agreed was the final reference?
When should anyone speak up? And should everyone speak up only when it is pleasing to the other person?
If we stick to the texts in the sense of making every effort to understand the text within the context and to know which is which, and if we are clear about what is our personal experience and what we adopt from specific text, it will be better for everybody. -
Michael Beloved Personal experience is a big deal. Many of my books are about personal experience. If the personal experience is found to be supported by something from the text, that too is a big deal but my point is that personal experience need not be supported by the text. And when it is not, then it should stand as personal experience. Otherwise there is the tendency to move the text out of context and that is my objection.
However, I offer my best wishes for your continued success in self-realization! Keep posting your information. It is great and encouraging! -
Avadoot Maharaj Haribol Raj, I am back after long separation to clarify in a humble way what I feel needs be said and of course, I prefer to take the opinion of the perfect ones to be free from any personal speculation of the subjects. So here is what is said by 'devadeva' in the 'gita'-sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ yoga-yukto munir brahma na cireṇādhigacchati.
That is to say we cannot be happy just merely renouncing life and the functions of the body. Thus, why be silent when there is so much that can be said about the supreme transcendence. Bhakti is the synthesis. 'Karam' is the thesis or structure that you regard as binding, as a solution non-karam or inactivity is suggested as also per the Buddhists and Impersonalist Mayavada section, yet the synthesis provides immediate blissful results-brahma na cirenaadhigacchati. So why be silent when the God-given tongue can rectify everything? Therefore the sages have deemed Kali-yuga beneficial for us IF we do Hari-kirtan. -
Martin Gustavsson @ varun ahlawat
@ Michael Beloved
For the ones who lack courage, heart or mind non-action is excellent. For the ones who connect with courage, heart and mind, for us non-action is not an option, it is suffering, it is pain, crying for the ones who suffer in this world and it is deep thought to solve problems correct and long-term.
In that way I envy the ones who are completely detached, without guilt. I seek it, I can experience it, but not for long. I come back to life. I guess I am too human to be dead inside or maybe too controlled by ego (or oneness) to be nothing, trying to affect nothing.
The good thing with everyone trying to detach is that a person without a heart, without a mind or without courage has the potential to become detached like the Buddha and thereby live forever through his wisdom without hurting anyone and instead maybe be a part of saving the world through non-action. -
Michael Beloved Martin Gustavsson, There are three types of positions from which one considers non-action but above you listed two of them, which are the two which we are most familiar with. These two are:
Consideration of non-action when one is attuned to the level of trauma in which a situation occurs
Consideration of non-action when one is aware of but callous to the level of trauma in which the situation occurs
The other type which you did not list is this:
Consideration of non-action when one is not attuned to the level of trauma but is attuned to the situation from another plane of consciousness where the situation is perceived without its trauma content
This last consideration is the type executed by yogis and by ascetics as for example you cited Buddha. This situation is not one of callousness because the person is not within range of the violence or displacement which produced the trauma. -
Michael Beloved An example may be given of three persons who experienced an explosion. The first person was within ten feet of the detonation. He felt the full impact or trauma. He is mortally wounded.
The second person was within one hundred feet of the explosion, he felt the wave from the blast energy. He understood it directly and felt emotions for himself and for the man who was mortally wounded.
The third person was a thousand feet away behind high impact glass and did not feel the blast energy. He saw everything visually but did not have any touch or hearing impact. He looked on and realized what happened but he was not in direct contact with the blast and did not feel it the way it was experienced by the other two persons. -
Michael Beloved You wrote about detachment without guilt. How is that unless there is some responsibility? Can there be guilt if there is no responsibility for a trauma. How is it that one may adopt responsibility if one was not the cause of a trauma. How would that be correct? Of course one must sometimes assume responsibility when one was not the cause, as for instance a policeman who takes control of the victims in an accident. But otherwise and in consideration of the global scale of violence in the human and other species, even on the microscopic levels, how are you to assume responsibility for that? And if you do not, how can you feel guilt for the love-deficits?
-
Michael Beloved You mentioned saving the world. That I feel is dubious. Astronomers with modern technology give us an estimate of about 13-15 billion years for the duration time past of this universe. Do you think that after 13 billion years, we can save this world in any meaningful or permanent way? Or do you feel this will go on as it was before with us humans, as trivial miniscule actors?
Even if we minus out our species which to us is the most dangerous, still do you feel that you can fix this. Can you rectify all the wrongs being done by say one ant colony to another or one bacteria to another? If so then that is simply amazing. -
varun ahlawat Martin Gustavsson courage is to live a life naturally and one can't live life naturally if he don't have heart (love) to live it . Like rivers , like trees , like ocean . You pollute them but they will clean it by itself no matter what . They will clean it .
Detachment is the nature of universe . The meaning of life is hidden in it . This is the yogic way .
Detachment doesn't mean not doing anything . And it is also does not mean to go to the mountains and escape life . You can't escape life . Life is in living . Facing the reality . The reality is what human generally don't want to see . They are very busy in achievement, success . You are heartless when you live selfish life because you think it is you only . Freedom is not irresponsibility . Freedom is integrate yourself as a whole with full heart and courage . And act naturally . For that you have to cultivate patience .
The problem is understanding the word detachment . It is not avoiding desire .
For quiting smoking you don't need medicine but the courage and heart of detachment . Because living naturally seems so simple but in actual it is not . To loose weight ( obesity ) you don't need medicine but the courage of detachment.
-
devaPriya Yogini ~ Hi Varun~ I agree we must drive our bodies responsibly. I happened to also write a post a while back called the "Yoga Way" too. My comments are a little different than yours but I thought you might be interested. Here is the link - http://www.inselfyoga.com/m/forums/topic/The-Yoga-Way
varun ahlawat Hi devaPriya Yogini ~Thanks for your article . My honour.
You are your self this whole . The word God does not exist in India . We says Atma (self) . Yoga took birth when people started naming Dharam . Dharam is not religion . Dharam is nameless . Krishna says he is here to establish Dharam . He did not named it . Yoga destroy whole idea of separation of mind body and spirit ( Atma) . The reality is of individual . There is no others . It is all Atma ( self ) . . You are not Karam free . You cannot escape it . You have to face it . It is your choice to take path of pleasure or path of divinity . Divinity comes with responsibility . Responsibility of yourself . You have to integrate yourself as a whole . But we are so selfish we don't have time for our own self . We look more outward than inward. The moment we take responsibility........It is this moment that we feel divine energy within us . Yoga is the way
devaPriya Yogini ~ Oneness, wholeness is a stage one basks in until the perception equipment manifests to understand the complications of being an individual, among innumerable other individuals....who are not the same....but have similarities.
Evolution of the perception equipment one requires to properly perceive one's self within the Universal Form of Krishna is a supreme experience. Even Krishna says most people will never be interested in this level of yogic living. I think this is why the oneness movement is so popular. Its easy, its for everyone. It's pop spirituality. Individuality is not often desired except by the most brave of spiritual aspirants.
We have to look inward to get outward.
varun ahlawat Inner world is nothing but your intent . The power is in you . Your outer world is govern by your inner world . World is what you intent . That is why sages talk lot of about siddhis ( supernatural power ) .
varun ahlawat Nothing in this world will purify you as wisdom . Practice n live in yoga way and you will find this wisdom within yourself .
devaPriya Yogini ~ varun ahlawat - My inner world is influenced by many things in this creation and it's more complicated than only my 'intent'. In reality it is a complicated domain, the subtle/mind/psychological body. Asana, pranayama and pratyahara lead us to inner psychic vision in which we can literally see this subtle body, study it and clean out the nadis and other containments.
But I do agree that wisdom is the great purifier.
Wisdom leads to proper action and execution of yoga.
However, again, please realize, you are using the word 'you' and 'self' consistently falling back on them. If one really doesn't believe in the concept of spiritual individuality, than you would have no need for those words time and again.
YOU are talking to ME. Two selves. Not one. We are not one, we are two and that is ok, it is not a bad thing, not a scary thing, not an adversarial thing.
Krishna instructs Arjuna on the battlefield that all these souls have always existed & always will. I sense He's right.
varun ahlawat devaPriya Yogini ~ regards to you . Yourself does not mean only you . Krishna did not says souls . He says soul (Atma) always existed & will . Not two . It is not objective . It is subjective . Subject is only one . It is Atma (soul) .
It is your choice whether to realize only your intent . Or the intent of yourself . It is inside you .
When intent is complicated because you witness only one side of life - which is dynamic . But there is one more side it is called silence . The silence is not absence of sound . In this dynamic world - We are unique because of our Karam . We compare , compete , fight etc . We live in a race . We don't have time for our surroundings . Like a dream We create our own world and than enter into that world through our Karam , we our just like weaver ( spider weave web and than lives in it ) . We live in a age of achievement . What you achieve is not only because of you but what you stop contributing is only because of you .
Krishna told arjun both sides - dynamic and silent .
Patanjali simplified yoga to clean the body both biologically and psychologically and to realized our own self .
Just watch your breath . Mutual pull will reveal everything.
Love 2 u
Namaste