Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SarathW
Posts: 9174
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by SarathW » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:22 am

We are brothers Sarath :hug: after all you are 72% Bengali in your genes.
I found my lost brother!!
:rofl:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:25 am

SarathW wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:22 am
We are brothers Sarath :hug: after all you are 72% Bengali in your genes.
I found my lost brother!!
:rofl:
Nothing would make me happier than being your brother .. honestly

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5281
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by binocular » Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:23 pm

No_Mind wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:40 am
If a Buddhist reads the 5 Yamas and 5 Niyamas (given below in case you were too lazy to read above) along with rest of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali it seems that it is plagiarized from Buddhism.
No, it doesn't. That's ju
st your projection.
But can two people (or two sets of people) not reach same set of rules when approaching enlightenment?
Who says they can't?
It's not like the Buddha claimed copyright over nibbana.
Why do we have to look upon rise of personal computers as Gates vs Jobs .. why not Gates and Jobs.
Do we have to? I feel no such need.
Why can this not have happened in India 2,500 years ago about soteriology? Why is it Buddhism vs Hinduism .. why look upon them as competing traditions .. why this otherness from Buddhists ..
Where do you see this otherness? Because I don't see it.
Hinduism accepts Buddhism and Jainism as valid paths to Nibbana or Moksha or whatever lies at the end.
It's not clear that they in fact do so. Rather, as far as I know, Hinduism (whatever that most complex, versatile term means), sees other religions merely as pit stops or partial paths; and that eventually, one has to be born into a proper Hindu religion, with a proper Hindu varnashrama to really become able to attain liberation.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:50 am

binocular wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:23 pm
/../
Binocular .. You do not expect me to answer do you .. !!

Last time we had a tête-à-tête you suddenly decided to walk away from the argument .. remember you wrote "I was expected to think?" :smile: and then I asked "Who expected you to think?" and waited and waited and waited and waited .. but no reply :weep:

I am not engaging with you in long, fruitless discussion on a beautiful thread like this which is meant to spread love, amity and greater understanding.

I have noted most of your posts are cryptic questions

X - I saw blue sky

Binocular - What do you mean by sky.

From now on I am not going to explain and answer your cryptic questions .. you have to ask questions where you explain what you ask, why you ask and your take on it first. Show proper respect others in the discussion.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

alfa
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by alfa » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am

I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am

alfa wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am
I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.
In the video of Dalai Lama I shared .. he gives a really good brief speech about it.

And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:00 am

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am
alfa wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am
I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.
In the video of Dalai Lama I shared .. he gives a really good brief speech about it.

And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
No-Mind, I refer you to this very short sutta in which the Buddha addresses your view/any view that is taken as a conclusion. If you can somehow get the gist of what is being said, it will go a long way and help one in letting go of the intellectual pursuit of real wisdom.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:25 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:00 am
No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am
alfa wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am
I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.
In the video of Dalai Lama I shared .. he gives a really good brief speech about it.

And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
No-Mind, I refer you to this very short sutta in which the Buddha addresses your view/any view that is taken as a conclusion. If you can somehow get the gist of what is being said, it will go a long way and help one in letting go of the intellectual pursuit of real wisdom.
I have read it in Bhikkhu Nanananda's The Magic of the Mind

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books12/Kat ... e_Mind.pdf

But did not understand much.

I have found understanding difficult suttas depends on wisdom which comes with age. I am not that wise yet and too much is going on in my life to quietly contemplate a difficult sutta for 2-3 weeks (or even 2-3 days) with nothing else that is not in some way existentially threatening (or seems to be so) intervening.

Maybe a few years hence .. say a decade .. I will have some peace and quiet .. it all depends on Kamma .. when I finally have peace and quiet after half a century of tumult it may come with a debilitating condition of the eye or Alzheimers.

I am a great believer in ripening of Kamma for something to happen.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:06 am

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am
alfa wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am
I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.
And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
There's a saying that goes, "It is what it is." :)

Differentiating between Brahman and Sunnata may very well be a futile exercise in semantics. The only difference may be simply conceptual.

It reminds me of the so-called zero point energy field that quantum physics has explicated. It is "zero point energy" and yet there is enough of it in a teaspoon of empty space to boil all of the oceans on our planet. The "zeroness" is relative and theoretical, not an absolute (even if it is called "absolute zero")

Can we then call the zero point field or the quantum "vacuum" an actual "plenum?" Then what is the difference between vacuum and plenum?

To me this is a lot like the difference between the Unconditioned as described by Buddhists ("emptiness" or sunnata) and as described by Hindus/Yogis ("fullness" or Brahman - Brahman apparently just means something like "the most-est" or "the biggest-est", i.e. the all-encompassing, that which there is nothing greater than)

Whatever it is is what it is.

But good to also remember that Brahman is described as both Nirguna and Saguna... Saguna is always conditional, Nirguna is not.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:13 am

jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:06 am
No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am
alfa wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:59 am
I feel when it comes to practice, H and B are very similar. They differ only on the destination. While Hindus believe in an ultimate reality, Buddhists don't.
And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
Whatever it is is what it is.

But good to also remember that Brahman is described as both Nirguna and Saguna... Saguna is always conditional, Nirguna is not.

Saguna Brahman is mainstream/institutional Hinduism and not at all within purview of my discussion. I do not believe in anthropomorphic forms/representations of Brahman.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:17 am

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:13 am
jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:06 am
No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:02 am


And you are correct .. the destination is different .. and in all probability when one is at very end .. one finds Brahman to be nothingness. That nothing is the only something which exists.

:namaste:
Whatever it is is what it is.

But good to also remember that Brahman is described as both Nirguna and Saguna... Saguna is always conditional, Nirguna is not.

Saguna Brahman is mainstream/institutional Hinduism and not at all within purview of my discussion. I do not believe in anthropomorphic forms/representations of Brahman.

:namaste:
Fair enough.

I actually didn't have anthropomorphic form in mind (i.e. "Brahman as Ishvara") when I mentioned Saguna. I was thinking more along the lines of Brahman with upadhi (Saguna) vs Brahman without upadhi (Nirguna).

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:21 am

I'm not even sure if Brahman is at all in the purview of this discussion. I thought the purview here was about practice.

Buddhism places less or no emphasis on pranayama (and therefore basically kundalini / laya yoga) or niyama. Otherwise all the semblances of yama, asana, pratyahara, and samyama are present there in Buddhism.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:41 am

jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:21 am
I'm not even sure if Brahman is at all in the purview of this discussion. I thought the purview here was about practice.
It is not within purview of this discussion

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:56 am

Even though pranayama is more or less disregarded in Buddhist practice we still have to consider that in deep meditation (such as extended anapana) breathing slows dramatically or even "stops." Don't the yogis call this "kevala kumbhaka?"
Pranayama is a type of "brute force" cultivation of the so-called breathless state while Buddhist practice will lead to or toward it more passively and gradually (and safely).

I think the Tathagata was wise in omitting pranayama since it can be problematic for people with certain health issues and he seemed to be all for making meditation / "yoga" (enlightenment) more of a mainstream thing, which I don't think it was before his day (correct me if I'm wrong).

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:10 am

jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:56 am
Even though pranayama is more or less disregarded in Buddhist practice we still have to consider that in deep meditation (such as extended anapana) breathing slows dramatically or even "stops." Don't the yogis call this "kevala kumbhaka?"
Pranayama is a type of "brute force" cultivation of the so-called breathless state while Buddhist practice will lead to or toward it more passively and gradually (and safely).

I think the Tathagata was wise in omitting pranayama since it can be problematic for people with certain health issues and he seemed to be all for making meditation / "yoga" (enlightenment) more of a mainstream thing, which I don't think it was before his day (correct me if I'm wrong).
No historical evidence is there about various breathing exercises .. pranayam .. existed at time of Buddha .. may or may not have.

I doubt if Hatha Yoga (all the physical twisting) was there in his time. Most probably by his time yogis had perfected ways of strengthening the spine, core and legs (to sit for long periods) .. but nothing more. I think rechak, kumbhak etc all came later.

Note Patanjali's second-century (BCE/CE) Yoga Sutra (link in OP) mentions no poses at all, other than the seated meditation posture.

If only we had a time machine .. so much to know from the past. As some one put in the comments he sounds exactly like Darth Vader while doing it.



:namaste:
Last edited by No_Mind on Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:17 am

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:10 am
jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:56 am
Even though pranayama is more or less disregarded in Buddhist practice we still have to consider that in deep meditation (such as extended anapana) breathing slows dramatically or even "stops." Don't the yogis call this "kevala kumbhaka?"
Pranayama is a type of "brute force" cultivation of the so-called breathless state while Buddhist practice will lead to or toward it more passively and gradually (and safely).

I think the Tathagata was wise in omitting pranayama since it can be problematic for people with certain health issues and he seemed to be all for making meditation / "yoga" (enlightenment) more of a mainstream thing, which I don't think it was before his day (correct me if I'm wrong).
No historical evidence is there about various breathing exercises .. pranayam .. existed at time of Buddha .. may or may not have.

I doubt if Hatha Yoga (all the physical twisting) was there in his time. Most probably by his time yogis had perfected ways of strengthening the spine and legs (to sit for long periods) .. but nothing more. I think rechak, kumbhak etc all came later
The Tathagata seems to describe practicing pranayama in the Mahaasaccaka Sutta
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me, what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, entering through the nose and mouth. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ear lobes made much noise. It was like the sound that came from the bellows of the smithy. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ear lobes made much noise. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.

Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths further. I stopped the air, entering through the nose and mouth and ear lobes. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ear lobes, a lot of air disturbed my top. Like a strong man was carving my top with a sharp blade. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ear lobes, a lot of air disturbed my top. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.

Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths still more. I stopped the air, entering through the nose, mouth and ear lobes, further. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ear lobes further, I felt a lot of pain in the head...Like a strong man giving a head wrap with a strong turban. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose, mouth, and ear lobes further, I felt a lot of pain in the head. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle

Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ear lobes, for a longer time When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ear lobes for a longer time, I felt a lot of pain in the stomach .As though a clever butcher or his apprentice was carving the stomach with a butcher’s knife. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ear lobes for a longer time I felt a lot of pain in the stomach. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established. My body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.

Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ear lobes, for a longer time. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ear lobes for a longer time, I felt a lot of burning in the body. Like a strong man taking a weaker one, by his hands and feet was burning and scorching him in a pit of burning charcoal. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through my nose and mouth, and ear lobes for a longer time I felt a lot of burning in the body. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle. Then the gods seeing me thus said, the recluse Gotama is dead. A certain deity said thus: The recluse Gotama is not dead. Will not die. Will become perfect like this.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:30 am

jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:56 am
Even though pranayama is more or less disregarded in Buddhist practice we still have to consider that in deep meditation (such as extended anapana) breathing slows dramatically or even "stops." Don't the yogis call this "kevala kumbhaka?"
Pranayama is a type of "brute force" cultivation of the so-called breathless state while Buddhist practice will lead to or toward it more passively and gradually (and safely).

I think the Tathagata was wise in omitting pranayama since it can be problematic for people with certain health issues and he seemed to be all for making meditation / "yoga" (enlightenment) more of a mainstream thing, which I don't think it was before his day (correct me if I'm wrong).
Slightly off topic .. but you have to note this (all the twisting of limbs) is from Shaiva tradition .. not Vaishnava or Shakta though they too believe in plenty of meditation .. but only sitting meditation with breath control as they learn from their teacher.

Meditation as taught by Ram Krishna Mission does not include Hatha Yoga .. but sitting meditation .. neither Swami Vivekananda nor Ramana Maharishi .. the only two people I believe attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi (others may have but we do not know of them .. and many claim but are most probably nit telling truth) did not do all the twisting either.

Swami Vivekananda followed a punishing meditation schedule. Hours and hours daily as he has written. But no where does he mention twisting or doing pranayama as we know it.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:13 am

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:30 am
jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:56 am
Even though pranayama is more or less disregarded in Buddhist practice we still have to consider that in deep meditation (such as extended anapana) breathing slows dramatically or even "stops." Don't the yogis call this "kevala kumbhaka?"
Pranayama is a type of "brute force" cultivation of the so-called breathless state while Buddhist practice will lead to or toward it more passively and gradually (and safely).

I think the Tathagata was wise in omitting pranayama since it can be problematic for people with certain health issues and he seemed to be all for making meditation / "yoga" (enlightenment) more of a mainstream thing, which I don't think it was before his day (correct me if I'm wrong).
Slightly off topic .. but you have to note this (all the twisting of limbs) is from Shaiva tradition .. not Vaishnava or Shakta though they too believe in plenty of meditation .. but only sitting meditation with breath control as they learn from their teacher.

Meditation as taught by Ram Krishna Mission does not include Hatha Yoga .. but sitting meditation .. neither Swami Vivekananda nor Ramana Maharishi .. the only two people I believe attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi (others may have but we do not know of them .. and many claim but are most probably nit telling truth) did not do all the twisting either.

Swami Vivekananda followed a punishing meditation schedule. Hours and hours daily as he has written. But no where does he mention twisting or doing pranayama as we know it.

:namaste:
I honestly fail to see how analyzing the omission of practicing pranayama against the inclusion of practicing pranayama is "slightly off topic" especially in the wake of several responses on your part and others' about Brahman / Nothingness (which is more than slightly off topic). Doesn't your cheat-sheet in the original post actually refer to pranayama? Isn't pranayama mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali? etc? What's off topic about it?

I also didn't really make a case for extensive asana practice or even multiple asana - I said asana is there in Buddhist practice and specifically I'm talking about sitting meditation (sukhasana is an asana as is padmasana). If you sit in sukhasana and watch your breathing, you are doing asana. If you sit in padmasana and watch your body sensations, you are doing asana.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by No_Mind » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:40 am

jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:13 am
I honestly fail to see how analyzing the omission of practicing pranayama against the inclusion of practicing pranayama is "slightly off topic" especially in the wake of several responses on your part and others' about Brahman / Nothingness (which is more than slightly off topic). Doesn't your cheat-sheet in the original post actually refer to pranayama? Isn't pranayama mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali? etc? What's off topic about it?

I also didn't really make a case for extensive asana practice or even multiple asana - I said asana is there in Buddhist practice and specifically I'm talking about sitting meditation (sukhasana is an asana as is padmasana). If you sit in sukhasana and watch your breathing, you are doing asana. If you sit in padmasana and watch your body sensations, you are doing asana.
Hold on .. I meant bringing in example of Swami Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi as people who did not do Hatha Yoga or twisting limbs, by me, is off topic .. I was not weighing in on pranayama (which is simply put breath control ..)

You are correct that sitting in sukhasana and observing breath is asana. I write with .. instead of comma and that sometimes is difficult to understand.

On another note .. breath control which later came to be known as pranayama must have existed before Buddha (I suspect that sitting contemplation is as old as civilization in India) .. but probably it was not called pranayama .. Patanjali existed somewhere between 200 BCE and 400 CE (and to confuse matters there were three Patanjalis making it quite difficult to understand when this text was written)

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

jmccoy
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

Post by jmccoy » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:09 pm

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:40 am
jmccoy wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:13 am
I honestly fail to see how analyzing the omission of practicing pranayama against the inclusion of practicing pranayama is "slightly off topic" especially in the wake of several responses on your part and others' about Brahman / Nothingness (which is more than slightly off topic). Doesn't your cheat-sheet in the original post actually refer to pranayama? Isn't pranayama mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali? etc? What's off topic about it?

I also didn't really make a case for extensive asana practice or even multiple asana - I said asana is there in Buddhist practice and specifically I'm talking about sitting meditation (sukhasana is an asana as is padmasana). If you sit in sukhasana and watch your breathing, you are doing asana. If you sit in padmasana and watch your body sensations, you are doing asana.
Hold on .. I meant bringing in example of Swami Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi as people who did not do Hatha Yoga or twisting limbs, by me, is off topic .. I was not weighing in on pranayama (which is simply put breath control ..)

You are correct that sitting in sukhasana and observing breath is asana. I write with .. instead of comma and that sometimes is difficult to understand.

On another note .. breath control which later came to be known as pranayama must have existed before Buddha (I suspect that sitting contemplation is as old as civilization in India) .. but probably it was not called pranayama .. Patanjali existed somewhere between 200 BCE and 400 CE (and to confuse matters there were three Patanjalis making it quite difficult to understand when this text was written)

:namaste:
I apologize for the misunderstanding :namaste: :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests