We do not have to talk about this in class, but I am curious what you all think: How should we take this stuff (The sutras, The Gita, etc.) if we don't accept that "everything is suffering?"
On the one hand, we could say (like Mr. Smith has rightfully said in class), "this is a practical handbook for self-mastery." If we accept that we can pass over the superstitous Isvara/reincarnation bits. It seems feasible that a Yogi would tell us that we have not reached a level of "discrimination" (II.15), and thus we are not qualified to make the judgment. Anyways, are there any other responses from people who don't think that life is miserable? How should we react to this?
I have some more thoughts about this (some of which I have thought about in regards to the philosopher Arhtur Schopenhauer, who also argued that life is suffering), but I would like to hear someone elses thoughts. Especially if there are any of you in the class, who think that this stuff is "merely superstition" or "a wast of time" or just not that useful/valuable. Thanks!
As you mentioned in class on Wednesday, it seems that almost all religions reach a point where the saint/guru/sage/yogi merely says "You must experience [what I am talking about], and if you have not, you must trust my testimony."
ReplyDeleteNow granted, each of us will have a different bias towards believing or not believing someone who says that to us. But I think it's at least worth considering that they may be right. Besides, if we trust them, we stand to gain a lot more than if we refuse to trust them (Pascal). More specifically to the tradition of yoga, it seems like you have absolutely nothing to lose if you just try meditating on Isvara. If you're going to take the time to bother meditating, why not try doing it with an object that may end up becoming a shortcut?
As for the subject of suffering, within the context of yoga, I would be interested in whether or not a purely sattvic yogi still experiences everything as suffering. Sattva confuses me quite a bit, because sometimes it is described in positive terms, or as a something to work towards, while other times it is belittled because it is still part of the gunas. I imagine it is at least better than tamas and rajas, but perhaps it is just a very mild level of suffering.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I had some typos.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a person with discrimination is almost totally sattvic, because correct perception of things as they are, relies on the gunas in our mind. According to the sutra, the person with discrimination sees everything as suffering. So I think more sattva = seeing more suffering.
Yes, I suppose this might fall back on trust. I think I just do not want it to. I wonder what is meant by suffering though. It seems like more often than not, I suffer when I have wrong expectations. When I step outside and it is sunny out, I do not suffer later when it is not sunny. If I looked outside and said "yes! I am so glad that it will be sunny forever," then I am setting myself up for suffering. In the commentary it says that the wise person no longer says "there is some pleasure mixed with suffering," but rather "it is all suffering." I am curious about this leap.
Perhaps everything is suffering in a larger sense. The yogi realizes that the cycle of samsara never ceases as long as karmic seeds are sown, and it is the never-ending cycle of birth and rebirth that is suffering. This would allow us to say "My prakrtic body is enjoying this sunrise today," but know that ultimately everything is suffering.
ReplyDelete