What are the educational implications of Vedanta

Science & Spirituality - A Demarcation


1 Introduction

2 Section I.
2.1 Indian culture
2.2 The Indian philosophical systems
2.2.1 Your basic unity and today's relevance
2.3 Vaiçeßika - The philosophy of atomistic pluralism
2.4 nyãya
2.4.1 Epistemology of nyãya
2.5 Sãmkhya
2.5.1 prak ^ ti
2.5.2 gunas or qualities
2.5.3 Evolution
2.5.4 puruea
2.5.5 The empirical individual
2.5.6 Mechanisms of Knowledge
2.5.7 Sources of Knowledge
2.5.8 Criticism
2.5.9 Yoga
2.5.10 Self-control
2.5.11 Unit
2.5.12 Realization / Self-Realization
2.5.13 Types of Yoga
2.5.14 The seven chakras
2.5.15 The central role of breathing
2.5.16 The body
2.5.17 The soul
2.5.18 The mind - manas
2.5.19 The intellect - buddhi
2.5.20 The memory - citta
2.5.21 The Ego - ahamkara
2.5.22 The goal
2.5.23 The three states of consciousness
2.5.24 karma
2.5.25 External and internal nature
2.5.26 Psychology of Yoga
2.5.27 pramãnas
2.6 púrva-mímãmsã
2.7 uttara mímãmsã / vedanta
2.7.1 Advaita Vedanta
2.7.2 The central tenets of the advaita
2.7.3 Analysis of Experience
2.7.4 The mechanism of knowledge
2.7.5 Perception
2.7.6 Criteria of knowledge and the inadequacy of empirical knowledge
2.7.7 anubhava - Integral experience
2.7.8 Wisdom and Knowledge
2.7.9 brahman or reality
2.7.10 Idealism and realism in the light of Vedanta
2.7.11 The concept of Maya
2.7.12 avidyá or ignorance
2.7.13 Nature and soul
2.7.14 Realistic Epistemology

3 Section II
3.1 Introduction to Constructive Realism
3.1.1 Invariant and situationally changing sentences
3.1.2 Knowledge of information
3.1.3 Constructivism
3.1.4 Knowledge
3.1.5 Starting point of constructive realism
3.1.6 Reality and Reality
3.1.7 Concept of constructive realism
3.1.8 The "object-method circle"
3.1.9 “Reality” and “Reality” in the context of constructive realism
3.1.10 Lifeworld and micro-world
3.1.11 Epistemology
3.1.12 Knowledge and the method of alienation
3.1.13 Instrumental knowledge and the method of alienation
3.1.14 Rules for Alienation
3.1.15 The role of science in CR
3.1.16 Alienation and meta-reflection
3.1.17 Alienation and logical analysis
3.1.18 Ramakrishna, a pragmatic alienation of religions
3.1.19 The reflexive recognition of the alienation of Ramakrishna
3.1.20 Aims of Constructive Realism
3.1.21 Constructive realism and its relation to occidental metaphysics
3.1.22 Final discussion on constructive realism

4 Section III
4.1 Comparison of Constructive Realism with the Philosophy of Yoga and Advaita Vedanta
4.1.1 Basic assumptions of constructive realism
4.1.2 Plato's allegory of the cave (cf. Plato, 1994)
4.1.3 Differentiation between reality and reality in CR
4.1.4 Distinction between reality and reality in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta
4.1.5 Two types of knowledge
4.1.6 Definition of Spirituality
4.1.7 máyá
4.1.8 Differentiation of metaphysics from CR
4.1.9 Yoga or Spirituality as a Science
4.1.10 Evolution of Knowledge
4.1.11 The evolution of the scientist
4.1.12 Results of the work related to constructive realism

5 Summary and concluding discussion

6 Bibliography

1 Introduction

The jnana alone is eternal; it is without beginning or end; there exists no other real substance. Diversities which we see in the world are results of sense-conditions; when the latter cease, then this jnana alone, and nothing else, remains.

The Shiva Samhita, I: 1

The genesis of a scientific paper is closely related to the development of the scientist who wrote it. The introduction to this project is also the conclusion.

The starting point of this work is the desire to delve into the Indian Orthodox systems of philosophy and to work out a clarification of the epistemological value in comparison with constructive realism. Closely linked to this project is the question of the epistemological limits of science and spirituality.

As part of the scientific training, one becomes familiar with the methods, theories and models of a scientific discipline. So one can say that with the completion of the degree a good overview of the history, the research methods and the "status quo" of this subject area is given. However, what is only taught in a rudimentary way or not at all are the limits of what science is able to achieve.

If you get a basic positivistic attitude during a scientific degree, you will be disappointed as soon as you immerse yourself in the field of philosophy of science. Because, while practice is ahead of theory in many areas of life, surprisingly it lags behind in science. This does not mean instrumental knowledge; the sciences lead to many desired effects. Rather, the lag arises in the area of ​​the epistemological claim of the sciences to describe reality in its ontic nature. If you deal with the truth claim as a scientist, it quickly becomes clear that the positivistic basic attitude of the natural sciences has to be abandoned due to many arguments.

By juxtaposing the Indian-Orthodox philosophical systems of Yoga and Advaita Vedanta with Constructive Realism, the arguments against a positivist foundation in the field of research should be worked out. This juxtaposition represents an alienation in the sense of constructive realism, since a philosophy of science is put on the same level as a philosophy in order to expose its explicit and implicit assumptions. In this process of alienation, the opportunities for knowledge in the areas of science and spirituality, which also make the cultural background clearly understandable, are of particular importance. Finally, the different levels of knowledge should be discussed and the differences worked out. It will have to be shown that science and spirituality complement each other in a certain way, since the limits of science mark the starting point of spirituality.

This work is not about changing the relationship between science and spirituality or even connecting the two with one another. Science and spirituality have different goals. While spirituality can be practiced according to a basic scientific understanding, the reverse is not possible. Spiritism is not to be equated with spirituality here. A more precise definition of spirituality and its demarcation from spiritualism is another concern of this work.

The present work is divided into three sections. In the first section the Indian culture, the Indian orthodox philosophical systems and the religious ideas of the Hindu are presented. The second section deals with the presentation and discussion of constructive realism as it was developed by Prof. Wallner and his team. The third and last section is ultimately about the comparison, the juxtaposition or the alienation of the first two sections.

The aim of the work is to present the different possibilities of human knowledge from the point of view of constructive realism and the Indian orthodox philosophical systems of yoga and Advaita Vedanta. From the point of view of constructive realism, it is not possible to get beyond the realm of reality in terms of knowledge. The aim of this work is to show that, from the point of view of science, it is not possible to make this quantum leap from reality to reality, but that the concern of spirituality is to become aware of reality.

While science has so far not been able to meet the demands of knowledge of reality for various reasons, spirituality seems to open up a possibility to transcend the limits of science and thus of rationality. It is the aim of this thesis to present this.

A hallmark of Indian literature is the variety of translations and interpretations of the same Sanskrit texts. In addition, Sanskrit words have many different meanings and therefore the context of the interpretation is of enormous importance. For this reason, the translations of S. Radhakrishnan are used whenever possible and cited in English, as he went through an English-language schooling in the Indian cultural circle and was therefore familiar with both cultures from childhood. The second pillar of this work can be seen in the writings of Swami Vivekananda, who is to be seen as the literary founder of the Ramakrishna movement, which is represented today as the largest monastic movement in India and is used as an example for the spirituality of India.

2 Section I.

2.1 Indian culture

Geldsetzer (1999) regards Indian culture in its historical essence as timeless, as it has no time awareness and, in contrast to the West, treats the old with the greatest respect. This led to the tendency to make the old appear even older, to meet the new with mistrust and only to measure it against the touchstone of the past, while the occidental ideology of progress endows new things with the aura of truth and benefit. In Indian culture, new things first have to be legitimized by deriving them from the old. Another feature of Indian literature that is strange to Western thought is the focus on factual identity and the diversity of thought masses and the omission of publication dates and author names. The result of this approach is the fundamental classification of dominant interpretive streams of the Vedic heritage in the classical systems and their own further development at later times. These two aspects of Indian thought have an impact on chronology. While Indian scholars make everything a bit older and thus come to a number of 10,000 years, Western scholars put the Vedic literature around 1,500 BC. Chr.

If one wants to study Indian philosophy today, Chatterjee (1988) recommends four types of places to which a researcher should turn:

1. University Institutes of Philosophy and Sanskrit
2. Traditional study centers such as Benares, taking into account individual scholars, so-called pundits, which are often not tied to any institution and in many cases are only accessible via the medium of regional languages.
3. Jesuit seminars such as Vidya Jyoti in Delhi and
4. Non-academic centers of modern religions, such as the Ramakrishna movement, where the practical orientation of Indian philosophy in spiritual lifestyles can be studied.

Contemporary Indian philosophy is shaped by the cultural struggle between orientalists and westerners in education, which has its origin in colonization. This struggle led to a reconsideration of traditions and was initiated less by academics than by four social reformers: Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. As a source of contemporary philosophy, in the further course of the work, reference will therefore primarily be made to the writings of Swami Vivekananda, since he is to be regarded as one of the leading social reformers of this reconsideration and as a co-founder of the Ramakrishna movement and is therefore relevant for the further discussion in two ways is.

According to Chatterjee (1988), Indian philosophy is practiced in five different directions. Advaita Vedanta has been the most researched of the six Indian Orthodox systems of philosophy since the 19th century. For Chatterjee, Radhakrishnan is the best known representative of this system outside of India. For this reason, reference will be made in the further course of the work to his translations and presentation of Indian philosophy. The most influential new trend is highlighted as the tradition that tries to decouple logic and epistemology from religion and metaphysics. The third direction mentioned are social philosophers who were influenced by Habermas and Marx and whose resistance is directed against the relevance of metaphysics. The important contribution of this group is to show that the central theme of Indian philosophy is not just about spirituality. The continental tradition represented by the professors, Sindari, Shandra and Chatterjee is shaped by the examination of phenomenology and existentialism. The fifth direction is intercultural philosophy, which aims to cross-fertilize Indian and Western philosophy.

The Hindus base their belief in the Vedas, a word that comes from the root vid (know) is formed. The Vedas are a series of books that contain the essence of all religions for the Hindus. However, they do not assume that these truths are written only in their books. (Vivekananda, 1990d, p.329)

2.2 The Indian philosophical systems

2.2.1 Your basic unity and today's relevance

The Indian philosophical systems are broadly divided into two sections, the Vedic (vaidika) and the non-Vedic (vedavahya), or as orthodox (ãstika) and heterodox (nãstika) differentiated. The systems that accept the authority of the Vedas and allow immortal souls to reap the fruits of their karma (good or bad) are called ãstika regardless of whether they accept an almighty Creator God. The vaiçeßika Kanãda system, the nyãya from Gautama, that samkhya Kapila's system, the yoga System of Patañjali, the púrva-mímãmsã from Jaimini and that uttara mímãmsã or vedanta Vyasa's system are called in India ãstika daräanas while Jaina, Bauddha, pã¤upata and other such systems as vedavahya or not called Vedic because they question the validity of the Vedas. In this work, the ãstika daräanas shown. (Shastri, 1990)

Orthodox systems are not necessarily theistic. A system can be both orthodox and atheistic. The orthodox category includes two systems that are not theistic: samkhya and púrva-mímãmsã. These two systems do not accept a Creator God. If one looks at the philosophical standpoint of these systems and ignores their acceptance or rejection, one can find a multitude of different standpoints in the Indian tradition: empiricism, phenomenalism, realism, idealism in epistemology; Monism, Dualism, and Pluralism in Metaphysics. Despite the differences between these systems, there are many similarities that bind them together. (Balasubramanian, 1990)

All of these systems, both orthodox and heterodox, have their own point of view regarding the means and sources of knowledge and assure that their views and inferences are those sources of knowledge (pramana) as a basis. None of these schools starts "believing" without the support of the pramãnas out. The vaiçeßika and nyãya Systems of logicians, two and four respectively pramãnas accept, assume that there are no other possibilities of knowledge than theirs. They use deduction as the basis for explaining the soul, the mind, time and space, atoms and even divinity, although it cannot be perceived by the senses. in the púrva-mímãmsã and in uttara mímãmsã The system is convinced that in the case of supersensible truths that cannot be perceived through the senses or through deduction, the Vedas (çruti) can be used as the only source of knowledge whose validity as a pramana axiomatic (svataàsiddha) is like the validity of our eyes in terms of colors.

So it turns out that all of India's philosophical systems are different from theirs pramãnas depend and not immediately accept any (but) belief or dogma. It is necessary to give reasons for the views that are being held. It is written in the Upanishads that brahman, the absolute reality, can be reached through the heart, intellect and willpower. (Shastri, 1990)

h ^ dã maníßã manasãbhikl ^ pto

(Kathopanisad 2,3,9; Svetasrataropanisad 4,17)

Not only brahmanbut all higher ideals and attainments require the full effort of these three faculties of the mind.The pursuit of science and technology can develop only one aspect of the mind, the other sides require the development of metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics. Developing the intellect alone takes so much effort. The will and the heart are ignored anyway. Their development does not depend on their studies, but much more on the practice of moral and spiritual exercises. Society and association with persons who are advanced in “wanting” and “feeling”, that is, morally advanced persons with a strong will and spiritually advanced persons with emotional stability, are the more important practical means of developing the will and heart.

On this point all the main systems of Indian philosophy agree and further recommend "sãdhanã“In addition to the metaphysical speculation. Sãdhanã involves the practice of various moral principles that require and encourage a strong will, as well as some spiritual practices that are designed to develop the emotional aspect of a person. This shows the special emphasis on the practical implementation of theoretical content in Indian philosophy. In addition, all - the six Vedic systems that measure ãgama Systems as well as the Buddhist systems and those of the Jain - of direct teaching by a sage (sãdhusa'ga) is of great importance as a practical means of developing personality and knowledge. This point of the fundamental unity of the systems is just as relevant today as it was in ancient times. (Shastri, 1990)

2.3 Vaiçeßika - The philosophy of atomistic pluralism

The system of the Vaiçeßika is attributed to the fabulous author Canada who made the Vaiçessikasutra and thus should have created the basis. Based on older natural philosophical assumptions, this work tries to categorize everything that exists and represents a pluralistic and realistic ontology (Amerbauer, 2000).

Geldsetzer (1999) sees the philosophy of Vaiçeßika a pedant to occidental natural philosophy. In terms of its essence, it can be called analytics. The central term vishesha means individuality, specificity and can be translated as the “basic building block of reality”. Likewise, the classical occidental natural philosophies explain the reality of nature from such basic building blocks, atoms or elements and the further development of the philosophy of Vaiçeßika can be understood as the foundation of Indian natural science.

The system of the Vaiçeßika tries "to exhibit in one system the characters and interrelations of all that is observed"(Whitehead: The Concept of Nature, p 185). Whitehead distinguishes between sensory data, the world of perception and scientific objects. Sensory data are the current colors, tastes, tones, temperatures, which one perceives immediately. The world of experience is built on these perceptions. In order to explain the sensory data and the world of experience, a certain number of scientific objects is postulated. However, these are not objects of experience. in the vaiçeßika there are also the sensory data or objects of perception with which all experience begins. When these sensory perceptions are associated with the categories of substance, quality and the relations between them, one arrives at the level of the world of experience. It should be mentioned again here that when one speaks of an object and its qualities, facts are not quoted, but rather these are interpreted. If in vaiçeßika A distinction is made between eternal and perishable substances in order to express the ephemeral character of our experience. Scientific objects such as atoms and souls, space and time are postulated. A theory is subsequently considered to be confirmed when the sensory data lead to the world of experience and this ultimately leads to the scientific objects. But there is no recognizable logical connection between them. Radhakrishnan writes about this (1999, p.229):

Reality is not a substance or an aggregate of substances which are the subjects of qualities, but an essential relatedness, where we find need for analysis and comparison, distinction and identification. The changing world of experience consists of a plurality of existent things standing in a complicated network of relations of all kinds with one another.

The experience contains in the vaiçeßika Objects and Relations. Substance, quality and action exist in themselves and in one another. They are connected through a series of relations, which are called s ámánya or generic nature, viçeßa or specific characteristics and s amaváya or inseparable connection. Every substance has a generic quality or property, a specific difference, and is related to these via the relation of s amaváya connected. The distinction between general and specific, i.e. from s ámánya and viçeßa, is one of quality and substance. But what is the nature of now viçeßa ? Individuals are differentiated on the basis of daily experience. It is just not possible to give a satisfactory explanation for this specificity. What one knows about a specific thing is its qualities and how it behaves. But the uniqueness cannot be defined, although it seems obvious. If it is an immutable substance, we do not know what it is. The color blue implies the blue or a blue, but which blue is meant exactly cannot be determined. Radhakrishnan (1999, p.231) writes about this:

Ultimately we cannot define what we mean by uniqueness. Though the theory of viçeßa, or particularity, is not borne out by logical evidence, an obstinate empirical prejudice inclines us to grant unique indestructible essences to individuals. The individuality of the innumerable elements and souls is destructive of the individuality of the whole, and so, if the conception of an organized whole implied by the vaiçeßika view of negation and s amaváya is to be sustained, the doctrine of individuals will have to be modified.

The system of the vaiçeßika tries to integrate all aspects of the experience into a general scheme. The sense world has a true basis independent of the perceiving subject. The relations are real in that they are not conditioned by the human mind. in the vaiçeßika it is not assumed that the perception is multifaceted. It is based on a number of laws. The categories of quality, action, generality, specificity, and inherence are dependent, while substance is the independent entity on which all others depend. Substances are absolutely independent. Perishable substances that have a cause are not substances in the strict sense. The theory of the nine eternal substances becomes the central thesis of the pluralism of the vaiçeßika. These are referred to by Whitehead (1920) as scientific objects different from the objects of perception and sensory experience. Its value lies in the ability to explain and order the perceptual information, as well as better structure the perceived nature as it is perceived by the senses. Regarding this perception, Radhakrishnan (1999, p.237) writes:

A naturalistic bias led the vaiçeßika thinkers to regard experience as an ever shifting phantasmagoria demanding explanation from outside. They regard objects of experience as shadows on the screen cast by substances behind. That shadows are cast on the screen of our minds by substances lurking behind, is a metaphysical assumption for which there is no warrant. We need not go behind experience and assume mysterious things in themselves.

He further argues that the system of vaiçeßika on the one hand requires being loyal to the experiences of empirical consciousness, on the other hand it goes beyond the testimony of consciousness itself when it sees the world of experience as a canvas that stands between the subject and the real, imperceptible objects. The system of the vaiçeßika tries to simplify phenomena, but postulates a false metaphysics:

when it assumes that the multiplicity of the world is the phenomenon of a noumenal multiplicity. When it once breaks up the unity of experience into a number of distinct elements, it is unable to reunite them into a whole. A scattered and dissociated diversity cannot engender unity unless it be through the instrumentality of a divine providence. These substances both in their eternal self-identity and non-eternal manifestations do not form a coherent whole. There is no string by which we can tie them all together.”(Radhakrishnan, 1999, p.237)

The idea of ​​the interconnectedness of the substances is not well developed. While relativity is supposed to be a central part of life experience, all relations with regard to the independent atoms and souls are described as scientific objects. The world of reality, the nine eternal substances, remain forever untouched by change. The cause of the phenomenal change cannot be sought in a peculiarity of reality itself. Independent atoms cannot be used to explain the phenomenal world. In order for the phenomenal objects to arise, they have to meet and collide. But if the atoms have the quality of motion, they cannot be independent, because even the motion of the atoms is a negation of their independence. Relativity is inconsistent with the absolute independence of the elements. The so-called immortal substances cannot therefore be simple, unchangeable and permanent elements, but at most relative fixed points in a system that is constantly changing. If change and relativity are properties of reality, then reality cannot represent an aggregate of simple reals. The real scientific object is not the eternal substance, but the constantly changing identity of the world itself.

The reason why im vaiçeßika Assuming eternal atoms is the fact that it is not possible to create something out of nothing. Experiences of smell, taste, color and temperature are associated with the atoms. Since these experiences are permanent, it is assumed that the atoms must also be immortal. This expresses that the base from which vaiçeßika begins, the experience is. The atoms themselves, however, are imperceptible, although they are held responsible for certain phenomena of experience. These experiences are viewed as part of nature, i.e. part of an objective reality and not, as in Buddhism, part of the mind. The problem that arises from this is that the atoms are not part of the world of experience, but are seen as the sole cause of the world of experience. Strictly speaking, Radhakrishnan (1999, p. 239) means that one knows neither a universal matter nor invisible atoms, but only bodies. A body is defined as that which moves. It is a piece of matter whose natural arrangement of its parts remains unchanged while all other relations or positions change. Matter is what fills the frame of space and time. The only helpful suggestion that atomistic theory can make for philosophy is that the real is that which exists in and for itself.

2.4 nyãya

The philosophy of the nyãya emphasizes the "going back" or "leading back" in the argumentation and one could say that it is shown in its title as a deduction doctrine. From the occidental point of view, the nyãya -Philosophy can be viewed as formal logic.

The oldest known document is called the nyãya -Sutras des Gautama, consists of 5 chapters with two sections each, each containing two to seventy sentences, and is ascribed to the 2nd century AD. Various commentators followed suit over the centuries, and this emerged in the 12th century nava nyãya, with an even more decisive focus on logic and methodology. (Money Setter, 1999)

While, according to Sen (1990), the other Indian systems are rather speculative, the system des nyãya and the system of vaiçeßika the analytical type of philosophy and relate to common sense and science. Radhakrishnan defines the difference between these systems as:

What is distinctive of these schools is the application of a method, which their adherents regard as that of science, to material which has hitherto been treated in quite a different way”. (Radhakrishnan, 1999, p.29)

So this is about the application of logic with the aim of opposing Buddhist phenomenalism, which mixes external reality with the ideas of the mind. Both try to re-establish the traditional substances, the soul within and nature outside; This time, however, not on the basis of dogmas, as it was done in the time before Buddhism, but through the methods mentioned. The general skepticism promoted by Buddhism required other evidence than just belief in certain dogmas that had been attacked by heretical thinkers through the evidence of the senses and logical inference. in the nyãya consequently, only what can be established on the basis of logic is recognized as true.

The philosophy of the nyãya and des vaiçeßika takes on the usual contents of traditional philosophy: These include, for example, space, time, cause, matter, mind, soul and knowledge. It examines its significance for the experience and merges the results into a theory about the universe. Great importance is attached to the logical and physical aspects.

According to Ammerbauer (2000), the nyãya 16 (dialectical) categories are distinguished, of which the first two, the four means of knowledge and objects of knowledge, are to be regarded as the most important. The flawless knowledge of this ultimately leads to the abolition of suffering and liberation. These 16 categories include the four means of knowledge (perception, conclusion, comparison and reliable communication), the twelve objects of knowledge (soul, body, five senses, objects, reason, mind, psychological and physical activity, deficiency, transmigration, fruits of deeds, Suffering, liberation), doubt (cause of a debate), purpose (of a debate), example (as evidenced for a thesis), theorem, limbs (of a conclusion), argumentation, decision, disputation, dispute, destructive argumentation, five false reasons, three types of perversion, misleading objections and reasons for defeat.

2.4.1 Epistemology of the nyãya

nyãya insists that things are the source of logical truth, that the external world exists apart from knowledge of them, and that knowledge determines that ideas correspond to things. The real is split into two levels, the subjects and the objects, whereby the usual assumptions or experiences from the lifeworld are transformed into a metaphysical theory. This proves to be inadequate in relation to both experience and the rules of logic.

The main metaphysical assumptions attached to the nyãya harm, are according to Radhakrishnan (1999):

I. The self and the not-self are separate from each other
II. Consciousness is the result of the causal effect of not-self on self
III. Knowledge is a quality of self

Regardless of these implicit assumptions contains nyãya fruitful suggestions on how to overcome these. As long as im nyãya if it is stated what is directly experienced in the act of knowledge, it is on safe ground. At the moment, however, when nyãya tries to go beyond knowledge with metaphysical assumptions, it opens space for criticism. The fundamental flaw of the nyãya is, according to Radhakrishnan (1999), the same mistake Locke and other empirical thinkers who view the world apart from the subject make. This mechanistic view, however legitimate it may be in everyday life, is ultimately untenable. It is not possible to fathom the nature of knowledge by judging it objectively. If the self and the not-self are separate and consciousness is the result of the effect of the not-self on the self, as Locke and Descartes, Hume and Kant thought, then all the contents of consciousness are subjective states of the knowing individual. When the subject becomes separated from the object, it is difficult to build the bridge between the two. One must either assume that the object is the subject's creation or that there is no object at all.If one assumes that the object is represented in consciousness or is reflected in it, no matter what standpoint one takes regarding the relation of knowledge to the object, it becomes impossible to be certain that the world exists in the form in which it exists is perceived. It is not possible to check the cognitions against reality, as this is external to the thoughts. If something is capable of comparing the idea on the one hand with the object on the other, then it must be consciousness. However, this must include both the idea and the object. Regarding this Radhakrishnan (1999, p.135) writes:

If truth means agreement of ideas with reality, and if reality is defined as that which is external to thought, what is not and cannot be in thought or made up of thought, then truth-seeking is a wild-goose chase. Thought seeks an end which could never conceivably be attained, nay, an end of which no clear notion could be formed. The Naiyayika faces the conclusion that the goal of thought, i.e. the attainment of truth, cannot be directly realized. He holds that for a finite mind the goal of thought is beyond attainment. We have to be content with the lower ideal of acquiring confidence in the working value of our ideas. Serviceability or practical efficiency generates this feeling of confidence. This workability does not, however, justify the nyãya assumption that ideas work because they are in accordance with reality.

While it is possible for objects to be real without being present in consciousness, it is still not possible to assume that real existence is independent of experience. in the nyãya is called the relationship between object and knowledge svar ú pa sambandha designated. Cognition is awareness of an object. The cognitions are thus only specified by the objects. According to this view, knowledge does not create objects or corresponds to them, but captures them. What can be recognized is either the effect or the copy of the object in the consciousness of the subject. Whether one thinks of an object, perceives it or remembers what is perceived, is the object itself, which is independent of the knowledge process. The theory of the nyãya however, direct perception of reality is inconsistent with the assumption that subject and object are substances that are isolated from each other. Subject and object are inextricably linked.

2.5 Sãmkhya

The origin of the name of the philosophical direction of the is still unclear sãmkhya. Some point to a legendary founder named Sankha, others assume that the etymological relationship with Samkhya, which can be translated as number, points to a number philosophy that is even said to have influenced Pythagoras. Geldsetzer (1999) sees the most plausible interpretation as the philosophical reflection that is linked to older texts, whereby sãmkhya can be translated as "speculative system".

Amerbauer (2000) assumes that it is the oldest among the Hindu systems and forms the ontological basis for the system of yoga. It is both realistic and dualistic: the reality that can be experienced is real and all phenomena of reality can be explained through the interaction of the two principles.

In the dualistic separation of principles of sãmkhya the subject-object split, which has been a constant theme in Western philosophy since Parmenides, seems to have been addressed. In contrast to the Western philosophy of reflection, the sãmkhya however, emphasizes the fundamental non-objectivability of the subject principle (Geldsetzer, 1999).

sãmkhya represents a departure from the formalistic systems of thought that have been presented so far. His rejection of the rigid categories of nyãya - vaiçeßika as inadequate instruments for describing the complex and, above all, dynamic universe, represents, according to Radhakrishnan (1999), a real advance in the theory of atomic pluralism. sãmkhya undermines the foundations of supernatural religions by invoking evolution as opposed to creation. The world is therefore not the creation of a creating God who created a whole world, detached from himself, through a single act of will, but is the product of the interaction of the infinite number of souls and those who are always active prak ^ ti or the potential of nature.

The philosophy of the sãmkhya goes from the reality of the puru äas and prak ^ ti derived from the fact of knowledge with its differentiation between subject and object. No explanation of experience is possible unless one accepts the reality of a knowing self and a known object. sãmkhya tries to give a comprehensive explanation of the experience, why it takes place and under what conditions it is possible. Richard Garbe (1897), who particularly dealt with this philosophy, praises it in the highest tones, saying:

In Kapilas doctrine, for the first time in the history of the world, the complete independence and freedom of the human mind, its full confidence in its own powers, were exhibited. It is the most significant system of philosophy that India has produced.

According to tradition, the system of sãmkhya unanimously attributed to Kapila, who is said to have lived in the century before Buddha. The sãmkhyapravacana s útra, which is assigned to Kapila, consists of six chapters, the first three of which deal with the system of sãmkhya deal, while the fourth chapter contains some illustrative stories, the fifth rejects some contradicting views, and the sixth is a summary. (Radhakrishnan, 1999)

Many scholars assume that the theoretical cosmogony of sãmkhya is reflected in the practical and spiritual basis of Patanjali’s yoga. According to Keller-Reich (2002), these include Monier Williams, Max Müller, Dvivedi, Radhakrishnan, Potter, Feuerstein and Miller. Analysis of the constituents of phenomenal existence in the classical sãmkhya are very helpful to understand the point of view, the attitude and the goal orientation of classical yoga, even if some conceptual differences can be found again.

The dualism of the sãmkhya of puru äas and prak ^ ti is attributed to causality. One of the central assumptions of the sãmkhya is that the effect previously existed in the cause that caused it. According to this doctrine that satkãryavãda called, cause and effect are undeveloped and developed states of the same substance. All production is development (udbhava) and all destruction is wrapping (anudbhava) or disappearance of the cause. There is no ultimate destruction. The past or future states are not destroyed because the yogis are able to perceive them. Hence the evolves sãmkhya System the theory of evolution (ãvirbhãva) and the involution (tirobhava).

2.5.1 prak ^ ti

sãmkhya tries to explain nature through an immense complexity of elements that are subject to constant change. The hierarchy of forms of physical matter, which is itself a product of sub-material elements, is seen as the unfolding of the resources of nature. Furthermore, it is stated that if all effects are latently contained in their causes and an infinite regress is to be avoided, then there must be an unconditional cause. From the principle of causality it is deduced that the ultimate basis of the empirical universe is the unmanifested prak ^ ti represents (Radhakrishnan 1999).

prak ^ ti is seen as the material basis for everything mental and phenomenological, which can only be perceived in its effects. The origin of matter is thus from the world of experience and the mental through the philosophy of yoga and the sãmkhya derived. The experience of the relative world consequently includes the intellect and the ego, which are seen as the material cause of the senses and the sense objects and which enable the experiences of daily life. In the Yoga Sutras, the components of the mind are in the word citta summarized. These three aspects of our mind determine the entire subjective and objective perception (Keller-Reich, 2002).

sãmkhya assumes the continuity of the world from the least to the highest. The products develop and then disappear again in infinite succession. The world is called parinãma or transformation of prak ^ ti considered, which is their cause. Thought to the last, the ultimate cause must eminently contain all reality, the meaning and value of the effect. Nothing can develop that has not regressed. While every effect has a cause prak ^ ti none, but it is the cause of all effects from which it is concluded. It is called brahmã, that which grows, or Maya, that which limits, denotes.

While the products of prak ^ ti caused, dependent, diverse and limited by space and time, so is prak ^ ti unconditional, independent, unique, omnipresent and immortal. There prak ^ ti is immortal, it can never have been created. An intelligent principle cannot represent the material from which the inanimate world is formed, since spirit cannot be transformed into matter. In addition, the agent is not the puru aa or the soul is, but rather ahamkara or self-awareness, which in turn is a product itself.

Vyasa describes prak ^ ti in his yoga bhasya (Commentary on the Yoga Sutras, quoted from Radhakrishnan, 1999, S260):

nihasattãm nihsadasan nirasad avyaktam alingam pradhãnam

(yoga bhasya, II: 19)

that which never is nor is not, that which exists and does not exist, that in which there is no non-existence, the unmanifested, without any specific mark, the central background of all.

Nothing that exists can be destroyed, all products exist in prak ^ tialbeit in unmanifest form.

Radhakrishnan describes prak ^ ti (1999, p. 262):

The prak ^ ti of the sãmkhya is not a material substance, nor is it a conscious entity, since puru äa is carefully distinguished from it. It gives rise not only to the five elements of the material universe, but also to the psychical. It is the basis of all objective existence. The sãmkhya arrives at the conception, not from the side of science, but from that of metaphysics. The real in its fullness is distinguished into the unchanging subject, and the changing object and prak ^ ti is the basis of the latter, the world of becoming. It is the symbol of the never-resting, active world stress. It goes on acting unconsciously, without regard to any thought-out plan, working for ends which it does not understand.

In the language of constructive realism prak ^ ti represents the foundation for reality and expands the object-method circle, which will be discussed in more detail later, to include the problem of determined perception.

2.5.2 gunas or qualities

"The manifest, the evolved is composed of the three guns as the constituents, is indiscriminative, objective, common, non-intelligent and productive. The Pradhana is also like this. The spirit, though similar, is the reverse of these. " (Samkhyakarika 11, translation Mainkar, 1988, p.74)

The development of prak ^ ti takes place with the help of the three forces that make it up. These will gunas called. They are not perceived, but inferred from the effects. These qualities, which are constantly dynamic in themselves and interconnected, are the origin of all physical and psychological transformations in substance, form and content. This seems to be a very modern representation of matter and substance as an energy field. From this point of view, evolution is the constant transformation of energy from one state to the next. The manifestation of matter is viewed as a series of appearances and, in a sense, mathematical fiction. (see Keller-Reich, 2002)

The first of these forces is called the sattva or potential consciousness denotes and leads to conscious manifestation and causes pleasure in the individual. From an etymological point of view, the word comes from sattva from the root "sat“That which exists or is real. In a broader sense, it also means perfection. The sattva Element leads to joy and virtue. The second force is called rajas is the origin of all activity and leads to suffering. rajas leads to a life of feverish pleasure and restless exertion. The third force is called tamas or that which stands in the way of activity denotes and leads to a state of apathy and indifference. tamas leads to ignorance and indolence.

The functions of sattva, rajas and tamas are manifestation (prakã ¤a), Activity (prav ^ tti), and escapement (niyamana). They cause joy, suffering and indolence. The three gunas never occur independently of each other. They support each other and mix with each other. All composite objects are made up of the three gunas. All of the differences in the perceived world become the three too gunas attributed to. prak ^ ti the only substance and these qualities are its elements. It can also be said that they represent the different stages in the evolution of a particular object. Sattva represents the essence or the form to be represented, tamas the resistance to the achievement of the goal and rajas represents the effort and activity required to achieve the goal or final shape. A thing is never created, it is always only a product. Production is manifestation and destruction is dissolution. These two depend on the presence and absence of opposing forces. Everything has its ideal essence that it strives for and a current state that it tries to shed.

It is assumed that the gunas are of a very subtle consistency. They are subject to constant change. Even in the state of equilibrium, they are constantly mutating, but they do not produce objective results unless the equilibrium is disturbed. When the equilibrium is disturbed (gunaksobha), then they work gunas on each other and the result is evolution. Dominates in material things at rest tamasalthough the others are not absent. Dominates in moving things rajaswhile the others are latent. The terms sattva, rajas and tamas so are used to indicate the dominant force, although these always work together to produce the world. They change through mutual influence or their closeness. They develop, connect and share. Radhakrishnan also writes (1999, p. 265): "Prak ^ ti and its products possess the gunas and so are unconscious. They are devoid of the power of discriminating between themselves and puru äa. They are always objective, while puru aa alone is the subject.

The entire universe is made up of these three gunas. All mental and physical changes and qualities can be explained by them. While prak ^ ti represents a multidimensional, intertwined and demonstrable structure that encompasses human perception and the sphere of action, the mind and the body, the same structure can be understood as a large energy field. Interestingly, they are similar gunas the quanta of modern physics, are potential and manifest (cf. Reich-Keller, 2002).

2.5.3 Evolution

Does it come under the gunas to an imbalance, the manifestation follows the prak ^ ti, which is now related in an evolutionary series. According to Geldsetzer (1999), the fact that this connection is called evolution is probably an occidental interpretation, since there is no Sanskrit term for it. These are transitions from the subtle to the coarse, from the invisible to the visible, always in such a way that the later is already laid out in the earlier. This shows the parallelism to the preformation concept, as it was also developed by Leibnitz.

mahat, or the great, the cause of the whole universe, is the first product of evolution. This is the basis for the intelligence of the individual. While the term mahat stands for the cosmic, universal aspect, so represents buddhi, or the intellect, the psychological counterpart that is inherent in every individual, buddhi is the subtle substance of all mental processes; it is the faculty through which we are able to differentiate objects from one another and perceive them as such. The functions of buddhi are determination, determination and decision. Next appears or evolves ahamkara or in other words, the principle of individuation.Through its activity, the different "minds" receive a separate mental background.

The development of the objective world takes place in the theory of the evolution of the sãmkhya after the development of the "I", ahamkara. ahamkara is understood as material while buddhi appears more cognitive in its function, so is ahamkara rather practical. The puru aa or the soul identifies with the actions of prak ^ ti by ahamkara. ahamkara is not responsible for the individualization of the universal consciousness, as individuality already exists. Rather, it is responsible for the fact that the impressions that come in from the outside world are individualized.

The gunas develop from ahamkara depending on the quality in three different directions. Out ahamkara in the aspect of sattva (vaikãrika) develop manas (the mind) and the five organs of perception and the five organs of action. ahamkara in the state of tamas (bh ú tãdi) develops into the five subtle elements. The aspect of the rajas (taijasa) plays a role in both developments and is present in the results. From the five subtle elements (tanmãtras) the five gross elements eventually develop. In all these developments, albeit always one of the gunas dominated, all the others are also present and contribute to this development (cf. Radhakrishnan, 1999).

The transition from the unmanifest to the manifest also redefines the idea of ​​causality. There is an identity between cause and effect (cf. Geldsetzer, 1999). It is interesting to think that the difference between cause and effect manifests itself over time and is perceived by the viewer, who is also subject to this temporal change. The wise yogi is said to be able to skip these temporal changes in order to do everything at once in the prak ^ ti to recognize.

2.5.4 puruea

Spirit as distinct from matter exists, since an assemblage of sensitive objects is for another’s use; since this other must be the reverse of everything composed of the three constituents; since there must be some one to enjoy and since there is the activity for the purpose of liberation ... And from this contrast it follows that the puru äa, the soul, is a witness, free from misery, neutral, spectator and passive. ” (S.K. 17, trans.Mainkar, 1988, p.93; S.K. 19, trans.Mainkar, 1988, p.97)

Simply put it is puru aa the counter principle to prak ^ ti. Since all objects of knowledge relate exclusively to the prak ^ ti and relate to their manifestations, this counter-principle can only be found in negations of all positive determinations of the prak ^ ti are recorded. (see Geldsetzer, 1999)

sãmkhya defines the subject or perceiver as puru aa and the object or the perceived as prak ^ ti. Radhakrishnan (p.280, 1999) makes several arguments of the sãmkhya indicating the existence of puru äas should confirm:

(I) “The aggregate of things must exist for the sake of another. ” To explain this, he gives a bed that was created for a person to sleep.
(II) "All knowable objects have the three gunas, and they presuppose a self who is their seer devoid the gunas.
(III) "There must be a presiding power, a pure consciousness which co-ordinates all experience.
(IV) "Since prak ^ ti is non intelligent, there must be someone to experience the products of prak ^ ti.
(V) "There is the striving for liberation (kaivalya), which implies the existence of a puru äa with qualities opposed to those of prak ^ ti. The longing for escape from the conditions of existence means the reality of one that can effect the escape.

Geldsetzer, (1999) considers it particularly important that everything that is ascribed to consciousness or subjectivity in the West as “psychological faculties” or “physiological substrates” is in the sãmkhya basically the prak ^ ti is allocated. In this way the spiritual is moved into the farthest imaginable transcendence from the appearing reality and at the same time identified with what can be regarded as the most peculiar and unquestionable of human consciousness.

2.5.5 The empirical individual

The individual self is to be differentiated from the highest self. This is defined by the senses and the limitation of the body. While the pure self is to be found beyond the intellect, the reflection of this self appears in the intellect as ego, the knower of all states, pleasures and sufferings. Each intellect represents an isolated organism, which is determined by its past actions and shows its personal, individual form of ignorance. The ego is the psychological unit of the stream of psychic intra-individual experience. While the highest self or puru aa is eternally one in itself, the j í va or the individual self is an object of nature. The egos are existences in a world of existences and are no more real or permanent than this. Every ego has a subtle body within the gross body (cf. Radhakrishnan, 1999), which is the cause of rebirth and continues to exist at the time of death. The subtle or subtle body that contains all experiences is called linga or differentiating grade of the puru aa designated. Only through the lingas can do the different puru aa differentiated from each other. As a result of prak ^ ti instruct the three gunas which, depending on their composition, reflect the level of development of the organism. If tamas dominates, the organism is in the stage of development of the lower living beings and animals. Begins rajas To dominate, the organism enters the human life form until it finally uses sattva attaining salvation or self-actualization. The changes and attachment belong to the subtle body. The thesis of evolution connects every human being with all other forms of life, both animals and plants. By connecting puru aa and prak ^ ti Consciousness arises in the subtle body, although it is by its nature unconscious. He is subject to joys and sorrows, actions and their fruits and drives in the cycle of rebirth. The consciousness is reflected in the internal organs, which represent the actual actor, while the soul lingers detached and breathes life into the organism; comparable to a lightbulb that is only lit by electricity. This connection of the soul with nature is not a permanent one. The soul connects with nature in order to reflect in it. prak ^ ti is subject to both physical and psychological phenomena. These two just represent different forms of development. prak ^ ti acts while puru aa enjoying the fruits of actions.

2.5.6 Mechanisms of Knowledge

For Avia-Keller (2002) one of the most notable aspects of the sãmkhya the separation of the mind from consciousness and awareness. The mind is the bridge between puru aa or absolute consciousness (corresponding to the reality of the CR) and the phenomenal world. The mind represents all functions of thinking, the inner instruments represent aspects or parts of the mind.

There are three factors in every cognition: the object of knowledge, the knowing subject, and the process of cognition. In the philosophy of the sãmkhya represents the pure consciousness to the knower or pramãt ^ dar; the modification (v ^ tti) is this pram ãna, pram ã is the reflection of the modifications in consciousness in the form of objects.

According to the psychology of the sãmkhya (Vivekananda, 1999) perception takes place in the following way. Perception begins with the instrument of seeing (indrya), the eye. Behind it are the optic nerve and, subsequently, the corresponding brain centers. However, the understanding or is still missing for the perfection of perception manasthat brings the perception to the intellect or buddhi forwards, the determinative aspect of the mind. If the response is from the intellect, it will be from the sense of self or ahamkara and the impression of the external world. However, something is still missing. Just as any picture is displayed on a canvas, so all ideas and thoughts of the mind must be projected onto something that is relative to the body and mind. This is called the soul, puru aa or atman designated.

2.5.7 Sources of Knowledge

Cognitive awareness has five different forms:

(I) pram ãna or valid knowledge (cognition = object)
(II) viparyaya or invalid knowledge (cognition ≠ object)
(III) vikalpa or cognitive awareness induced by conventional expressions but without an object
(IV) nidra or sleep / cognition going through tamas was induced
(V) sm ^ ti or memory

sãmkhya goes from three pram ãnas or possibilities of knowledge from: perception, inference and testimony of the scriptures.

Knowledge that occurs through perception of the senses falls under perception. If an object, for example a mug, is in the field of vision, the intellect changes in such a way that it takes on the shape of the mug. This is how the soul perceives the presence of the cup. The perception is furthermore undetermined (nirvikalpa) and determined (savikalpa) divided. Undetermined perception is still fuzzy, there is already an awareness of the object, but only through the mental analysis do the properties and the category of the object come into consciousness. Memory is also subsumed under perception. (see Radhakrishnan, 1999)

Inference has two categories: affirmative (v í ta) and negative (av í ta). The first relates to affirmative simultaneous presence, the latter to negative presence. Generalization is the result of observing the presence of the concomitant phenomenon (the hypothesis) and observing the absence of the opposite phenomena. Implication and subsuming are also listed under inference.

ãptavacana or credible confirmation is also a source of valid knowledge. A word stands in relation to the object as a sign. The Vedas are not attributed to specific persons, as there are none who can be named as authors. The Vedas are in sãmkhya nor are they considered imperishable, as they contain the property of their effects. Letters pass as soon as they are pronounced. Due to their non-personal authorship, the Vedas are recognized as free from doubts and discrepancies and viewed as self-evident validity. If those who teach the scriptures are not inspired seers themselves, that is, realized souls, then the case of the blind, led by the blind, occurs. sãmkhya acknowledges other scriptures as well, but argues that logic should be used to determine which revelations are true and which are not.

na hy ãptavacanãn nabhaso nipatanti mahãsurãh

yuktimad vacanam grãhyam mayãnyai çca bhavadvidhaih

(Aniruddha V ^ tti I.26)

Huge giants do not drop from heaven simply because an ãpta, or competent person says so. Only sayings which are supported by reason should be accepted by me and others like yourselves.”(Translated from Radhakrishnan, 1999)

Even if the credible confirmation from a competent person may sound a bit strange at first, this statement addresses direct experience. However, this should by no means be taken over blindly, but must conform to the rules of logic and be tested by reason.

Furthermore, in the sãmkhya recognized yogic perception. This includes the knowledge that all objects exist in a state of involution or evolution at all times. The yogi's mind can connect with the latent states of objects through the power of his meditation. In this form of knowledge there is no need for sensory perception, the internal organs perceive the properties of the object directly, so to speak, and immediate knowledge is obtained. (see Radhakrishnan, 1999)

2.5.8 Criticism

Although independent objects and subjects are assumed, the discussion of the nyãyathat pure subjects and objects represent false abstractions that have no meaning without their corresponding frame of reference. At the moment when the concrete unity of experience is split up into subject and object and these two entities are defined as absolute, there is no longer any explanation for the experience. If the soul is viewed as pure consciousness and nature as something opposite, the latter can never become an object of the former. sãmkhya is unable to cross the rift between object and subject. Another problem is the reflection of the modifications of the intellect in the soul. Assuming the validity of the theory of reflection, this ultimately leads to psychological subjectivism. Reflection is not equivalent to perceiving a reality that is not purely mental. The relationship between the external object and the internal idea also remains unclear. If the two are causally linked, the question arises what will become of the radical opposition between the two. If puru aa and opaque ^ ti are completely independent, it is not possible to infer a conscious perception or a material process. Ultimately, this corresponds to a reductio ad absurdum. However, vague terms and a series of metaphors attempt to hide this basic problem.

Furthermore, the theory of sãmkhya not the fact of knowing which reflects an object-subject relation. It assumes that the object is dependent on the subject for knowledge and the subject needs an object that can be known. In other words, no knowledge is possible without the synthesis of the two.

The principle of consciousness is not an independent experience, but is derived from knowledge. Consciousness is defined as a pure subject, while the content of consciousness, which is subject to constant change, is assigned to the objective world. All objects as well as sensory perceptions and mental states are defined as material. As for knowledge, it becomes possible through the modifications of the intellect. Every act of knowing is relevant to consciousness. On the one hand, consciousness enables the intellect to function; on the other hand, the modifications of the intellect lead to knowledge. Since experience thus has two elements, one permanent and one impermanent, it is not possible to separate them from one another. That is, the subject of the object. First a pure subject and a pure object are accepted, until finally the compulsive attempt is made to unite the two in experience. It will later be found that both are differentiated in consciousness or knowledge and not outside of it. Subject and object are inseparable from each other. (Radhakrishnan, 1999)

The same mistake can be found in the materialistic ontological thinking of Western natural sciences, in which one of the basic principles of scientific research is objectivity. This illusion is exposed in both Indian philosophy and constructive realism, although the starting point is different, as will be shown later.

According to Geldsetzer (1999), the sãmkhya Theory in Indian thought might have reached the same limits that could not be exceeded in Western thought so far. These insurmountable limits result from the juxtaposition of subject and object and the associated task of clarifying their properties and their relationship. Obviously explain the ideas of the sãmkhya this problem is better than occidental subject-object theories, which thematize the subject in a way and language that makes it an object again. Subject theories that avoided this mistake in the West, according to Geldsetzer's level of knowledge, have so far emerged in the tradition of mysticism and aim at the ultimate unity - unio mystica - of subject and object. The philosophy of yoga, which will be discussed next, is an attempt to make this unity tangible through a systematic method, or, in other words, to come to an awareness of reality.

2.5.9 Yoga

According to Geldsetzer (1999), the system of yoga among the six Indian darshanas is the philosophy that is essentially about the practical experience of becoming aware of reality. It is a theory and practice of meditation, the preoccupation of the mind with itself and the hoped-for detachment of the mind from everything material and phenomenal of the "reality" in the sense of constructive realism.

The word yoga has 31 different meanings in Sanskrit literature. It is used in a variety of ways in India. When something unpleasant happens, they say, “Today my yoga is not good.” Misfortune is called yoga. In astronomy, the meeting of two planets is called yoga. The etymological meaning of a word is also called yoga. Yoga has also spread widely in western culture in the last century and everyone now has a certain idea of ​​what is meant by yoga. In western cultures, the term yoga is often understood to be the form of hatha yoga, which is aimed at strengthening, cleaning and controlling the body. This word is also used very often in a spiritual sense. Yoga represents three approaches in this regard: self-control, oneness and realization / self-realization (Prajnanananda, 1999).

Patanjali defines yoga as:

yoga cittavrtti nirodhah

(Patanjali Sadhana Pada verse 2)

The end of thoughts is yoga.

Everything that is secret and mysterious has no place in the system of yoga. The best clue in life is strength. Everything mysterious weakens the human brain. Yoga was almost destroyed by it. From the time it was discovered - more than 4000 years ago, it was passed down through a well-structured teacher-student system. Many modern authors speak of all kinds of secrets. Yoga fell into the hands of a few who made a secret of it in order to claim the benefits for themselves. (Vivekananda, 1999c)

2.5.10 Self-control

Yoga starts with self-control and ends with self-control. Self-control is the way and at the same time the goal. The Patanjali Yoga Sutras speak of an eight-step path. The first stage will yama or called self-control. The goal is to achieve perfect control over the body and mind in order to enable the awareness of reality. (Prajnanananda, 1999)

2.5.11 Unit

On the one hand this unity relates to body and soul, on the other hand to the unity of the soul (atma) with the highest self (brahman). In yogic literature, the body is feminine. Every body is feminine and the self within it is masculine. Each body represents the unity of male and female. This unity is yoga and comes about because of the breath. The breath plays a central role in yoga. How is the relationship of the soul to Brahman? To describe this, the metaphor of the sea and the wave is often used. The wave cannot be separated from the ocean. It arises, consists and disappears from / in him. According to the philosophy of yoga, every individual is off brahman emerged, all life in him and reunited with him. Yoga is the understanding of the relationship between one self and reality. (Prajnanananda, 1999)

2.5.12 Realization / Self-Realization

samadhana is the third meaning of yoga and means: a state of balance.

This state is described in the Bhagavad Gita (II: 54-58).

Note on the Gita: The Bhagavad Gita, commonly known as Gita, translated means the divine song. This small but admirable script can be found in the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata consists of 18 books or parvas. The Gita is found in the 6th book, called Bhishma Parva. Gitas represent a spiritual tradition in India. There should be about 36 different Gitas, which are assessed differently (e.g. Avadhuta Gita etc.). Although the Bhagavad Gita is only a small part of the great epic, it contains the essence of the Upanishads. It includes knowledge of the absolute, brahma vidya, and is a text on yoga. It consists of a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna. (Hariharananda, 2000)


End of the reading sample from 176 pages