News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Present Evidence Here II

Started by Fidel_Castronaut, February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Arik

#645
Quote from: Baruch on April 19, 2019, 09:42:54 AM
Traditional practices and asceticism aren't populist.  Buddhism faced this same pressure.  The original indigent monk system was replaced with a householder system that tangentially supported the indigent monks.  Lay people ruin everything ;-)  One can easily see this with the original followers of Jesus (not a coincidence).  The Buddha had the advantage of initial monarchial support, and Jesus did not.  Buddhism underwent the same cycle in China and Japan, again with initial monarchial support.  Miuhammad may of may not have been a contemplative ... but once he was the leader of Arabia, he was the monarch.  It took several centuries before the founder of the Han dynasty in China, made Confucianism a part of state-craft (that is also what happened to Gentile Christianity).  Daoism was a competing/contrasting Chinese practice v Confucianism.  It could be said that government sponsorship is also a death kiss.

So yes, yoga as you define it, the usual definition, is an individual practice as a disciple under a teacher.  Zen Buddhism comes close to that.  And both eschew excessive scripture.  One has to suspect that Bodhidharma, who came from S India, was not unfamiliar with yoga ;-)


Yoga is the ultimate art because it fulfill the very purpose of life which is to merge in the ocean of cosmic consciousness and to become one with it but as all other art forms it require a lot of pin pointed effort and effort without a strong desire is impossible to achieve anything.

That is the very reason why people give up or change the rules of the "game" (so to speak) in the intent to make it easier and all your accounts-description are just typical examples of how the original version turn into something that has none or little to do with what suppose to mean. 


QuoteLet me know if you are interested in discussing Patanjali or yoga in general.  In orthodox Hinduism, the authorities tie Sankhya with Yoga, to make it astika.  I am particularly fond of Sankhya.


Here below are just two interesting comments about yoga and Patanjali from two different version of yoga that seem to have a lot in common.
I hope you find them interesting.
https://www.ananda.org/video/patanjali-explained/

https://www.ananda.org/video/patanjali-explained/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVL1oHNR8c
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

trdsf

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 17, 2019, 01:41:27 PM
Western Christian theology doesn't seem to insist on logic, either.
Well, if it -- or any other religion -- was logical, they wouldn't need faith.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on April 23, 2019, 11:12:43 PM
Well, if it -- or any other religion -- was logical, they wouldn't need faith.

2+2=4, therefore .... atheism is logical?  Logic doesn't get you much if your axioms are wrong.  I think we can trust arithmetic, but not much else.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Minimalist

Well, B, xtians operate under the proposition that 1+1+1 = 1

Hard to get much more illogical than that!
The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.

-- H. L. Mencken

Unbeliever

Yeah, when it comes to religion the numbers don't always add up:

Numerical contradictions and errors in the Bible
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Arik

Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2019, 09:11:11 PM
Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.


If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Baruch

Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:08:52 AM

If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/

You missed reading my quote regarding Yoga from the Gita?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Simon Moon

#653
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2019, 11:36:26 PM
2+2=4, therefore .... atheism is logical?  Logic doesn't get you much if your axioms are wrong.  I think we can trust arithmetic, but not much else.

No...

Atheism is a logical position, as long as theists continue to fail meet their burden of proof. As soon as theism is evidently demonstrable, then atheism becomes an illogical position.

As far as I can tell, since the existence of gods are not supported by demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logical arguments, theism is the illogical position. And yes, I am quite familiar with all the so called 'logical' arguments (ontological, teleological, cosmological, TAG) for the existence of a god.

But speaking of axioms...

I am sure, for the most part, we both share many of the same axioms. I.E., there is an external reality, we share the same external reality, other minds exist, the past exists. There seems to be evidence for these, since we all seem to experience them. Unless, you are a solipsist of course, then this entire discussion is moot.

But you and other theists are adding other axioms, that do not seem to be in evidence, i.e., the supernatural exists, a god exists, said god interacts with the physical universe. We don't all experience these theistic axioms.

Please let me know why your additional axioms, besides the ones we both agree on, are reasonable to hold, and I will alter my atheist position.
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Baruch

Logic is foolish, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.  Nerds LARPing as Vulcans.  A futile semantic game.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

So, illogic is not foolish?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

#656
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2019, 07:31:53 PM
So, illogic is not foolish?

You are being binary.  In a Venn diagram, for you, there is only set A, set B .. no other sets, and the sets don't overlap (both A & B).  Also in some languages (smarter than English) ... a double negative doesn't return you to "start".  Not (Not (A) isn't equal to A.  Exclusive 19th century European culture, plus general ignorance of a technical subject (don't ask me to fix your car) ...

All logical systems, except toy systems (binary numbers is a toy system) are semantically ambiguous.  Aka ... unreasonable.  This applies to all the classic word problems in Greco-Roman philosophy and law.  This wasn't clear until the later 19th century (and set theory (Venn diagrams)).  A good example is false dichotomy ... foolish isn't the opposite of wise.  Un-wise is the opposite of wise.  Un-foolish is the opposite of foolish.  Irrational is the opposite of rational.  Un-reasonable is the opposite of reasonable.  Illogical is the opposite of logical.  But it is "begging the question" to equate foolish with un-wise with un-reasonable with illogical.  These are commonly confabulated, because ... rhetoric.  When done for dishonest or political reasons, combining synonyms is Newspeak.

In my empirical (not rational) analysis ... humans are illogical, irrational, un-reasonable, foolish, un-wise creatures.  There isn't any choice if you are referring to human beings.  To "err" is human, and what an "err" it is!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sal1981

Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).

Baruch

#658
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 12:47:06 PM
Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).

One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sal1981



Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 01:09:21 PM
One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk