Thank you, ! They are smrti! In the context of the conversation I think Edwin is referring to the sutras as part of the recognize textual tradition (the 6 Darshans) . We should do another interview with him in few months, we'll ask him to expand on the subject. Keep watching!
From my own personal radical philosophical point of view, which rejects absolute revelation, there is no such thing as "Shruti" in the typical sense. Only "Smriti" - All revelation falls into the human mind of samskaras and rationality and all the pit-falls and difficulties therein. "There is no Revelation other than the Thoughts of the Wise" - Schopenhauer.
Quite analytical. And what would Edwin Bryant say on Nondualistic / Dualistic Shaivism! It would be great to hear from him on Shaivism as his work is on Yogic tradition.
See , there are things which cannot be explained but to be experienced, like untill you taste the sugar no matter how beautifully someone who tasted it before explained you! Ofcourse you will assume something from what he is said to you.. and you will tell someone else that you believe it's taste is like that.. and there someone else comes telling you no it is not like that.. . Because he hear it from someone else who experienced the taste of sugar and according to his ability he tried to explain it to him.. 😅
bhakti yoga doesn't make sense to our intellect but it's the easiest way to get blissfulness and mokhsya.astanga yoga make sense and logical but very difficult to get that blissfulness.
wonderful conversation, read george feuerstein's book on history of yoga couple of months ago, and had a much clearer understanding of what path would be correct for me, and now i've lost the spark, so i guess i'lll have to learn all the same things again
Sorry Dr Bryan... Would like to correct u Only in Gita it's bhagwan uvach. Whereas in mahabharat it's KRISHNA uvach. So KRISHNA in bhagwad Gita is not KRISHNA he is supreme being.. Stated by himself many years after the war . where Arjun requests him to narrate Gita again...
It's quite deep. When Gita says Bhagawan uvach ... it can imply that Krishna is Bhagawan. But then if we go by the essense of Gita.... Krishna as his mortal self is propounding that he "as jeeva" (in his terrestrial self) and eshwara are no different. So the trick here is Vaishnavites can interpret it that Krishna is Bhagawan... Eshwara Supreme. Non dualistic Vedantins will say.... that the Gita through Krishna unequivocally underlines his onness with Eshwara. Now the Shaivites will say that Eshwara is The primordial Shivam and Krishna is Shiva Eshwara. IMO... Bhagawad Gita is a lot more Advaita than Dvaita.
Again, thank you for these valuable gems.
A wonderful conversation. Edwin speaks with clarity and is able to explain complex concepts. Many thanks :)
Roads to Bliss, I miss you. Hope to see a new video soon.
A formidable teacher
Om
22:55 He called the Yoga Sutras srúti. I thought they're considered smrti?
Thank you, ! They are smrti! In the context of the conversation I think Edwin is referring to the sutras as part of the recognize textual tradition (the 6 Darshans) . We should do another interview with him in few months, we'll ask him to expand on the subject. Keep watching!
From my own personal radical philosophical point of view, which rejects absolute revelation, there is no such thing as "Shruti" in the typical sense. Only "Smriti" - All revelation falls into the human mind of samskaras and rationality and all the pit-falls and difficulties therein. "There is no Revelation other than the Thoughts of the Wise" - Schopenhauer.
Quite analytical. And what would Edwin Bryant say on Nondualistic / Dualistic Shaivism! It would be great to hear from him on Shaivism as his work is on Yogic tradition.
See , there are things which cannot be explained but to be experienced, like untill you taste the sugar no matter how beautifully someone who tasted it before explained you! Ofcourse you will assume something from what he is said to you.. and you will tell someone else that you believe it's taste is like that.. and there someone else comes telling you no it is not like that.. . Because he hear it from someone else who experienced the taste of sugar and according to his ability he tried to explain it to him.. 😅
bhakti yoga doesn't make sense to our intellect but it's the easiest way to get blissfulness and mokhsya.astanga yoga make sense and logical but very difficult to get that blissfulness.
That is too much.. I would say they are two different path and one should select as per his current condition. Easiest way? - I doubt it so much
❤😂🎉😢😮😅
wonderful conversation, read george feuerstein's book on history of yoga couple of months ago, and had a much clearer understanding of what path would be correct for me, and now i've lost the spark, so i guess i'lll have to learn all the same things again
Had a great time watching some of your practice. Hope to see more soon.
:-)
Sorry Dr Bryan...
Would like to correct u
Only in Gita it's bhagwan uvach.
Whereas in mahabharat it's KRISHNA uvach.
So KRISHNA in bhagwad Gita is not KRISHNA he is supreme being..
Stated by himself many years after the war . where Arjun requests him to narrate Gita again...
Gita is part of Mahabharata. They are not different.
It's quite deep. When Gita says Bhagawan uvach ... it can imply that Krishna is Bhagawan. But then if we go by the essense of Gita.... Krishna as his mortal self is propounding that he "as jeeva" (in his terrestrial self) and eshwara are no different.
So the trick here is Vaishnavites can interpret it that Krishna is Bhagawan... Eshwara Supreme.
Non dualistic Vedantins will say.... that the Gita through Krishna unequivocally underlines his onness with Eshwara.
Now the Shaivites will say that Eshwara is The primordial Shivam and Krishna is Shiva Eshwara.
IMO... Bhagawad Gita is a lot more Advaita than Dvaita.
No bhagawat Gita don't say you have a soul!🙆🏻♂️
It does...