Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)

[Husky]

Post 3/3



The previous 2 posts were relevant.

This post is my comments=spam, and only makes sense (if that) if read after the previous 2.





1. People can decide for themselves whether Patanjali's statement on 'Ishwarapranidhaana'

+ means what Elst and others "analysing" Hindoo texts want it to mean, OR

+ whether the phrase is stated - and thus to be understood - in the larger context of pre-existing Vedic works like the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad.



That is, people can decide whether Patanjali's Yogasutras are truly a standalone work (as it is increasingly presented as), or whether they're merely fleshing out in written detail aspects that were already long known by practitioners and thus form another part of the existing body of Hindoo heathen works, to complement what is already there in Shvetaashvatara and other upanishads mentioning Yoga like Pranayama etc, since Yoga and Sankhyam were clearly known to theistic Hindoos before the era of classical non-theistic Sankhyam.

And if it is complementary after all - as Hindoo tradition has upheld - then the reasoning behind the limited stress laid on "IshwarapraNidhAna" speaks for itself: as that part is well explained elsewhere (and quite literally so in the Sri Rudram), and no point repeating it and certainly no way of 'improving' on it either [whatever that could even mean].





2. There is no meaning to OM outside of Vedic religion. The other Indic religions have encroached on it and use it (e.g. like Jainism did with their mangled version of the Gayatri mantram, and on Bhur-Bhuvas-Suvah only to proclaim the superiority of their fictional backprojected 1st teerthankara in all lokas) - and the direction of how yoga came to be present in their religions is obvious when they use OM (ultimately makes as much sense for christoislam to randomly start using OM too) - but OM loses its meaning totally in all but Hindoo heathenism.

As can be seen even in the extracts from Shv Upanishad, but which is actually there in the Sri Rudram (IIRC in the central anuvaakam no less) the OM is intimately associated with Hindoo Cosmology (which IS theistic) - the Hindoo cosmology is unavoidable in the upanishad, as it actually repeatedly goes into the matter - and hence OM is a crucial part of the realisation* of the actual nature of puruSha that is in all jeevas, and which is but that one ParamapuruSha that constitutes everything. *By means of yoga to ensure this union/re-merger/realisation/whatever of the jeeva/pashu with the Paramapurusha/Pashupati.

To what extent could OM have any meaning in Patanjali's Yogasutras then, if it were not a continuation of the same? There is no OM - incl no meaning and no purpose to it - without the presupposition of Hindoo=heathen=theistic cosmology.



Also, yoga and OM are inextricably linked.





3. The Shvetaashwatara upanishad certainly (and repeatedly) describes yoga as the means of uniting the individual jeevas in manifestation with the Parameshwara. So, contrary to Elst's/Elstians' dismissal from assumed expertise, it is very true what Hindoos say, that yoga - as it exists in Hindoo cosmology - is a way for the ethnic HindOO to unite with its Parameshwara*, who is very much a Deva, as per the text itself. [Comparable to how ethnic Taoists have deep heathen practises to unite with their Gods/realise the Tao, be one with the Tao.]



* Words literally used in the text in the very context of dhyAna Yoga on Rudra-Shiva: yuktaH ("yogi"), yojanAt ("union with"). Etc. So Yoga does mean that - in shruti, which predates Patanjali (see also point 4 below).



And moreover, the Upanishad makes it clear that that Rudra-Shiva - the Devam, the Parameshwara - is the end/the aim of yoga (and actually even the means). Can contrast with Elst and other such condescendingly saying - via their conveniently-localised interpretations - that where yoga is concerned, theism can at best be a useful crutch for those so inclined.





And as for Elst's pointing to "kevala" as the goal of Patanjali's yoga and that this must be different from what the Hindoo heathens claim with yoga meaning union/unification with Bhagavaan:



Shloka 1.11 of the Shv U - already quoted in above - shows how the notion of kaivalya is tied into the yogi doing dhyaanam on Rudra:



From meditation on Him=Rudra ("abhidhyAnAt tasya") there accrues, on the fall of the body, the third, the full divine power. (And) he [=the one doing dhyanayoga on Rudra-Shiva] becomes absolute ["kevalaH"]* and self-fulfilled [AptakAmaH].



* Elsewhere, Hindoo texts translate kevala as "singular" (where Ishwara refers to himself as Kevala, which definition of singularity follows from the Sri Rudram and Shv U), as this IS the state of the Rudra-Shiva. Since Rudra is (in) the Self of all his Pashus - being the Sarvaatman - kevala becomes the state of the unfettered jeevaatman when it is unified with/merged into/otherwise united (by means of yoga, union) with Rudra once more.



Again: as per the Upanishad=shruti, dhyanam (yoga) is tied only via Rudra to the achievement of kevala and Aptakaama. Therefore, there is indeed a direct connection between yoga meaning union with Shiva and kevala as the result (in advaita this might be closer to the sense of having lost multiplicity by a more literal oneness with Shiva leading to singularity, to dvaitam where jeevas might retain distinction but now as perfected beings in company with their Devam - which is also a unification).





4. Pre-emptively, in case Elst/other anal-yzers of this type will next pretend that the Shvetaasvatara Upanishad is post-Patanjali's YS:



Elst etc pretended that the Gita postdates classical Sankhyam, whereas native Hindoo scholarship had decades before already proved that theistic Sankhyam from the Vedas (the Upanishads) to the MBh - including Gita, note - predates the classical non-theist kind.



ShvetAshvatara Upanishad is before MBh (incl Gita) too. The Upanishad is factually older than both the YS and classical Sankhya. It's not even a question*. The Shv upanishad has shlokas that the Bhagavad Gita is to have quoted from, and has shlokas apparently referenced by the BrahmaSutras. <- As per acharyas' commentary, I didn't do the cross-referencing.



* "Argument From Enemy" (not a fallacy, but rather: "look, even people I can't stand accidentally agree, since it's factual/unavoidable") -

Even that other dabbler - that other IE-ist, Victor Mair, regularly seen parasiting on Chinese (Taoist) civilisation - IIRC referred to Shvetaashvatara Upanishad's line of questioning for authority of ancient "IE" originality/uniqueness, when Mair was trying to illegally encroach on ancient (pre-Buddhist) Chinese civilisation using the Shv U.



No one - except those hoping to hijack Sankhyam and Yoga from its theistic origins - will pretend that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad (and it isn't the only one that referred to or briefly described yoga) comes after Buddhism/Jainism/etc or classical Sankhyam.





5. The necessary disclaimer:

The previous post was not to peddle Advaita or all Vedanta or Upanishads to all and sundry.* I only use such texts to mine supporting evidence from (to find out how blatantly subversionists, unHindus and anti-Hindus lie), and not to dabble in them, obviously. [* Hindoos already know all about their Divine Parents=the Hindoo Gods=Vedam, at times first-hand.]



I prefer to use evidence from stotras (which already distill the vedam, as far as I can tell) to make my point, but in this case that wasn't allowed: Elst had declared in his typical know-it-all fashion that Patanjali's Yogasutras were to have been hijacked by theistic Hindus who then supposedly "read" their Ishwara/Shiva into Yoga's purpose - see Elst's comment on Patanjali's "true" intention behind the latter's use of "IshwarapraNidhAna" - and that said Hindoos eclipsed the "real" atheistic purpose of the YS.



And that's exactly why theistic HindOO primary texts predating YS were called for (and what could be better than shruti, nah?) to make the point for the validity of Hindoos' views on the purpose of Yoga and how this is indeed tied to Shiva-Ishwara, and hence - from the Hindoo/shruti POV - is no mere definition left 'open to interpretation', as Elst-types would have it. Though the connection from Shv. U. to Patanjali's YS - "if any" - is left as an exercise, there's a reason that the ancestral heathen tradition of the Hindoos repeatedly makes the connection.



Disclaimer 2: while the advaita POV is strongly present in the upanishad, that is not at all the only Vedantic POV on it, since the other two are equally supported by the same verses (as Experts have stated, and as is often very obvious actually). Nor is advaitam the only POV on Vedanta in Shaivam in general. (E.g. the Pashupatas are IIRC said to have been dvaitins. Confirmed. Shv Upanishad seems to have been been a core scripture for the Paashupatas, which shows that dvaita POV on the same upanishad is just as valid and authoritative.)



But Advaita is the only Vedantic POV that gets hijacked - which is the correct word - by today's 'atheist and agnostic Hindus'. (The other two perspectives on Vedanta being too obviously theistic.) So it is useful to show how even the Advaitins' POV on this upanishad does not deny the theism: it cannot and will not de-emphasize Rudra. Then again, none of the expert advaitin successors of Adi Shankaracharya ever de-recognise the HindOO Gods (e.g. see Swami Swaroopaananda upholding Rama/Krishna); it's only new-ageist inexpert frauds/selfmade 'authorities' and jetsetting swamis who do. But then, [focus on] the upanishads are for Sannyasins, not for new-ageists and universalising peddlers.

In traditional Advaitam even that of the Adi Shankaracharya, there is no escaping the Parameshwara, so none of the proponents ever even bother denying it, since Parameshwara underpins their POV*. As the Paramaatman does the other Vedantic POVs. [* Advaitam views the Paramaatman like the...Tao: the all that is and can be, the only 'constituent' there is.]





6. Rudra Hrudayopanishad equates Uma-Shiva with Lakshmi-Vishnu and Saraswati-Brahma etc. And this is repeatedly upheld.

The Divine Parents of the ethnic Hindoos are factually their Divine Parents. (<- Uh that sentence sounded like "A=A", "A is indeed A onlee".) So what has been said here about (Uma-)Shiva - though sounding "unique" - is actually not exclusivist, and hence not denied of the other Hindoo Gods.



Also seen in the Shivalingam=UmaShiva being the trimoorti (wives included), and actually sarva devataaH (wives included in the very term) and being factually the All. Further, Shv U shloka 2.17 - which was a variant of the one in Sri Rudram - mentions him as being not only in all kinds of Oshadhi, but also embodied in all trees, with the Vanaspati=Ashvattha Vriksha mentioned in this particular shloka (though Rudram already mentioned all VrikShas as being/embodying Shiva too). All Hindoos know the Ashvattha Vriksha (which is also Vishnu) to be an equivalent of the Shivalingam: being the trimoorti and sarvadevaaH.



Just like the Gita, the Shv U is talking of Hindoo cosmology, hence its focus on the primordial case/state - what* everything resolves to. *Or rather "who"/Entity in Hindoo heathenism - explained as the Consciousness that gave rise to the All (including individual consciousnesses). What"/what-ness is closer to Taoism, though the Tao is also very much the source of consciousness and has to be so itself in order to give rise to Gods who are conscious, and to then give rise to the All of the Daoist Cosmos which includes all sentients/life. But the Tao is still not a 'person'/a being/a "who". For the unembodied undivided primordial Tao, What-ness is the better description.

(Then again, "that"/that-ness is used for Brahman too. So not unique to the Tao that pervades all.)





7. Traditional Hindoos from northern and southern climes have stated consistently for centuries (to the present) that the stotram from which the following shloka is taken is from the Agamic text SRY. (IIRC the current text of the RY doesn't contain it any more, and instead has lots of nonsense Buddhisms involving even the poor Chinese, which shows late Buddhist mangling of Hindoo texts.) The following shloka is meditated upon by Hindoos even without the rest of the stotram, but the entire stotram is of course concerned with the entire beeja mantram of Shiva (Ayyappa's beeja mantram is identical to that of his Father: he takes after both his parents, naturally, both Mohini Amman and Shiva. E.g. Ayyappa often wears the naamam just like his parent Vishnu).



ओङ्करं बिन्दु संयुक्तं नित्यं ध्यायन्ति योगिनः ।

कामदं मोक्षदं चैव ओङ्काराय नमो नमः ॥ १

ஓங்கரம் பி³ந்து³ ஸம்யுக்தம் நித்யம் த்⁴யாயந்தி யோகி³நஃ ।

காமத³ம் மோக்ஷத³ம் சைவ ஓங்காராய நமோ நமஃ ॥ १



(Note how it is about Uma-Shiva united (=O~Nkaram-bindu samyuktam), which yogis ever do dhyanam upon, and which gives bhukti and mukti.)



Here, from a translation of this shloka to Shiva:

This first shloka ... is also known as the OMkaara dhyaanam.

The great yogis meditate upon the praNava mantram "Aum", united with central Bindu. I offer my worship to that state of OMkaara that fulfills all desires and bestows Moksha. Note that the Central Bindu in "Aum" is the sacred dot and denotes Shakti: the Divine Mother (Uma) is that dot and Shiva is the father in the form of the sound of "Aum".

(In the 6 shlokas of the stotram, 5 of them largely parrot the Shv U. The other one parrots the Sri Rudram and other Hindoo texts.)





The previous 2 posts were relevant.

This post is my comments=spam, and only makes sense (if that) if read after the previous 2.