|
|
| What I mean is that are there any people around here who practice yoga but believe in nothing "supernatural"?
(or, if you love yoga class AND books like the "God Delusion")
| |
| | |
| What a huge can of worms to open, you're a very brave man aren't you? (Or is it just the ability to hide behind a keyboard that prompts such bravado?)
I'd say that I am an atheist, since I do not believe in God in the traditional Christian way. Atheism traditionally has dealt almost exclusively with Christianity, since it's a English or western word. However, I also dislike the idea of atheism for exactly this reason, it directly and deliberately opposed to Christianity. As we all know, by opposing something you give it strength, definition, and additional meaning. Since I have no desire to do this, I would also say that I am NOT an atheist.
So, what am I? Somebody who is unwilling to accept the answers he has been given, while also opposing the desire or label of somebody who believes in nothing beyond the purely physical. Why should the Christians (or Hindus, or Taoists, Wiccans, or Satanists) be the sole determiners of what is God, and how he/she/it manifests? | |
| | |
| Can of worms opened for sure! Dear Ollie: Now when you say people practice Yoga, but without believing God. Then, the question will be 'what yoga would mean to such a person' and 'what will be the goal of such a person'. For example, if the goal of a person is to make the hamstrings flexible, then he/she has to do forward bends without believing God. But, if the goal is self realization, now the question is what is self and then what is realization, etc.
GJ wrote: Why should the Christians (or Hindus, or Taoists, Wiccans, or Satanists) be the sole determiners of what is God, and how he/she/it manifests?
===> The problem is most of our things are decided by the past regardless of research put in. Even great Scientists such as Eienstein actually find very little new, and cling to the old.
pratyakshaanumaanaagamaH pramanani...In the material science pratyaksha (that is witnessed) proof is the best, whereas in the spirituality aagama (words of scriptures) is the best proof.
| |
| | |
| To answer this question, each should determine for self ideas (concepts) of God, trust and atheism. I believe that these things will be very different for different people.
For example Zen Kong-an:
I was God inside God
before this timebound Me,
and shall be God again
When from my Me set free.
1. "I was God inside God". What does this mean?
2. When will your Me be set free?
Answer:
God made everithing, so everithing has God-nature.
If mind appears, you lose God-nature.
But if you take away mind, you are always sitting with God.
What is God? Whom I should trust? Is it atheistic position?
Edited by Bob 2007-06-10 4:01 AM
| |
| | |
| Picking up on Neel's post...
I think a person can practise aspects of Yoga without believing in God (i.e. asana). But if we accept that Yoga is Union with the divine, then a belief in the divine would be necessary to achieve this goal (whatever word or language pattern a person may choose to describe the divine).
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| ...and talking of how people represent the divine, this was on the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6734469.stm
Very strange 
| |
| | |
| Jonnie: You got some unbelievable ( I mean unbelievable in amount or extent) information. | |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-06-10 2:57 AM
...and talking of how people represent the divine, this was on the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6734469.stm
Very strange
Not so strange; in fact Dawkins takes up stuff like this in his God Delusion book.
By the way, by atheist, I mean that someone who does not believe that there is something that will alter the known laws of science on their behalf; or put another way: doesn't have "faith" meaning that one doesn't believe in stuff that there is no hardcore evidence for.
| |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 8:16 AM
jonnie - 2007-06-10 2:57 AM
...and talking of how people represent the divine, this was on the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6734469.stm
Very strange
Not so strange; in fact Dawkins takes up stuff like this in his God Delusion book.
By the way, by atheist, I mean that someone who does not believe that there is something that will alter the known laws of science on their behalf; or put another way: doesn't have "faith" meaning that one doesn't believe in stuff that there is no hardcore evidence for.
I practice Yoga,
however I don't believe in other peoples' nor history's interpretations of what God is, other than a very few bright lights in the midnights of our eternities.
Atheism and all other -isms, religions, groups, parties, clans, families, sewing circles, bureaucracies, governments, schools, globally accepted, democratically elected, any group thought tends to show me it's flaw in some subjectively acceptable way sooner or later.
I have MY relationship with what others have labeled GOD, the divine, the Ghost, the spirit, the WHATEVER, but I KNOW that I don't experience the same as every other single person on the earth.
My IDEA of what GOD is isn't something that I could possibly explain.[EDIT--I could try, but I don't wanna argue, and it's not that important for me to explain it, I have it, and in my way of thinking we all do, if you don't see it, I ain't gonna tell you what time it says on your watch]
MORE than anything, I KNOW that my beliefs are not something that I can explain. Like I BELIEVE that you should NOT recruit in the name of GOD.
I know that if there is a GOD, that GOD can take care of getting the message out.
I believe things, yet I know that belief carries ignorance, but not nearly as much as believing that you know a thing based on some 'fact' that is yet to be disproved.
What is knowledge and what is belief.
Faith is belief and it carries ignorance, it embodies ignorance, but
there are some things that you will never know, and not knowing is O'kay.
Edited by SCThornley 2007-06-10 9:29 AM
| |
| | |
| http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid41370.aspx | |
| | |
| Anyway, the purpose of my post was to see if there are any others like myself here; it wasn't to poke a stick in anyone's eye.
By the way, I do my morning meditation while sitting in an easy cross legged postion and I do it because it calms and centers ME; for me this is a perfectly natural, secular thing.
| |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 8:16 AM
By the way, by atheist, I mean that someone who does not believe that there is something that will alter the known laws of science on their behalf; or put another way: doesn't have "faith" meaning that one doesn't believe in stuff that there is no hardcore evidence for.
But, the laws are not of science. Laws are of Nature. And, Nature is the manifested version of God. So, I guess you are not athiest. You are materialist theist!!! | |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 9:58 AM
Anyway, the purpose of my post was to see if there are any others like myself here; it wasn't to poke a stick in anyone's eye.
By the way, I do my morning meditation while sitting in an easy cross legged postion and I do it because it calms and centers ME; for me this is a perfectly natural, secular thing.
standing alone at the edge of the unknown is 'lonely' and from what I've learned about 'God' and all the -isms is it's better to admit that you simply don't know.
we don't need to make up mythologies to make us feel better, but the not needing doesn't automatically negate the possibility of the most unlikely possibility.
I like to imagine that I know infinity exists.
As a concept, it's pretty neat, and if it does exist, then the possibility of GOD is a part of infinity.
so, I'm not a subscriber to any -ism
but
I do want to know that GOD is a real possibility, and not knowing is OK
I'd like to point to something that would make us know that we are very alike in the ways you seek
I'd like to know that I'm not alone in my thinking
I'd like to believe that others are the same way
The very ideal of togetherness is something I believe we all seek
But
I don't know it
and not knowing is fine
but "knowing is half the battle"-G.I. Joe | |
| | |
| GreenJello - 2007-06-09 8:20 PM
What a huge can of worms to open, you're a very brave man aren't you? (Or is it just the ability to hide behind a keyboard that prompts such bravado?)
I'd say that I am an atheist, since I do not believe in God in the traditional Christian way. Atheism traditionally has dealt almost exclusively with Christianity, since it's a English or western word. However, I also dislike the idea of atheism for exactly this reason, it directly and deliberately opposed to Christianity. As we all know, by opposing something you give it strength, definition, and additional meaning. Since I have no desire to do this, I would also say that I am NOT an atheist.
So, what am I? Somebody who is unwilling to accept the answers he has been given, while also opposing the desire or label of somebody who believes in nothing beyond the purely physical. Why should the Christians (or Hindus, or Taoists, Wiccans, or Satanists) be the sole determiners of what is God, and how he/she/it manifests?
Yes,
and
they aren't
I determine through my self determination
and
believe you do too  | |
| | |
| Steve,
You are a model agnostic
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-06-10 2:59 PM
Jonnie: You got some unbelievable ( I mean unbelievable in amount or extent) information.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing?
| |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-06-10 12:34 PM
Steve,
You are a model agnostic
My ancestors were Huguenots and fled from the old country to keep from being burned to death
at least in the states where we settled, burning and religious persecution was not popular, unlike..........well.....
Hey, never forget
forgive does not mean forget
and not knowing does not mean it isn't possible. | |
| | |
| That was not Christian Europe's finest hour.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Please define "supernatural"  | |
| | |
| That is fantastic. And, you can handle it. But, that does not mean I can handle it. For example, I am slow reader that it takes me 10 or more times to read as average English Reader.
jonnie - 2007-06-10 12:35 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-06-10 2:59 PM
Jonnie: You got some unbelievable ( I mean unbelievable in amount or extent) information.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing?
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Not that I believe that all this is much importance but anyway:
yummie, nice discussion (or can of worms).
You do realize that there is a contradiction in this, don't you? Belief requires a leap beyond evidence.
Even your statement requires belief: The belief that there is nothing beyond the empirical, phenomenal reality. Can you provide proof to substantiate this belief?
Tw
| |
| | |
| tweeva - 2007-06-10 5:09 PM
Even your statement requires belief: The belief that there is nothing beyond the empirical, phenomenal reality. Can you provide proof to substantiate this belief?
It would be more accurate to say that "I see no evidence of anything beyond or outside of this universe", and "I believe in nothing I don't have good evidence for."
Why do I trust, say, the scientific method? Answer: demonstrable results.
Science has produced good (e. g., established cures for horrible diseases, increased life spans, better health) and evil (atomic weapons, napalm) and things like the internet that I am currently using.
Hence, I see the sceintific method as having produced tangible things; (e. g., that atomic weapons work verifies the models of nuclear physics, even though these weapons are evil).
So, no, I see no contradiction in being strictly secular.
| |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 6:18 PM
tweeva - 2007-06-10 5:09 PM
Even your statement requires belief: The belief that there is nothing beyond the empirical, phenomenal reality. Can you provide proof to substantiate this belief?
It would be more accurate to say that "I see no evidence of anything beyond or outside of this universe", and "I believe in nothing I don't have good evidence for."
Why do I trust, say, the scientific method? Answer: demonstrable results.
Science has produced good (e. g., established cures for horrible diseases, increased life spans, better health ) and evil (atomic weapons, napalm ) and things like the internet that I am currently using.
Hence, I see the sceintific method as having produced tangible things; (e. g., that atomic weapons work verifies the models of nuclear physics, even though these weapons are evil ).
So, no, I see no contradiction in being strictly secular.
but
Tweeva makes a good point
just because you don't see the evidence doesn't mean it's not there
infinity | |
| | |
| SCThornley - 2007-06-10 5:32 PM
Tweeva makes a good point
just because you don't see the evidence doesn't mean it's not there
infinity
Not at all!
Example: do you believe in Zeus? Appollo? (sp) Rah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The great JuJu? Fairies in the bottom of your vase? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Healing Crystals? Golden plates that can only be decoded by one human wearing special glasses?
Just because you don't see evidence in these things doesn't mean that they are not there!
Do you believe that I can do a perfect one-armed handstand? (no cheating by asking Neel! )
Just because you haven't seen evidence doesn't mean that I can't!
Nope, as far as I am concerned, I believe something only when there is evidence for it. Otherwise, what dictates belief? | |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 10:09 PM
SCThornley - 2007-06-10 5:32 PM
Tweeva makes a good point
just because you don't see the evidence doesn't mean it's not there
infinity
Not at all!
Example: do you believe in Zeus? Appollo? (sp ) Rah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The great JuJu? Fairies in the bottom of your vase? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Healing Crystals? Golden plates that can only be decoded by one human wearing special glasses?
Just because you don't see evidence in these things doesn't mean that they are not there!
Do you believe that I can do a perfect one-armed handstand? (no cheating by asking Neel! )
Just because you haven't seen evidence doesn't mean that I can't!
Nope, as far as I am concerned, I believe something only when there is evidence for it. Otherwise, what dictates belief?
Reality
and if you look at reality and conclude one thing, while someone else concludes the opposite, then what?
Why?
The concept of infinity is the concept of contemplation that led me to believe in things not seen.
I'm not a big believer in the flying spaghetti monster, or any of the others that have expressed themselves through our human wits and a desire for explanation.
I like not knowing, and still knowing that infinity can be, and in some conceptions is.
I would go so far as to say all human expressions/interpretations of what 'God' or lack thereof is flawed, unsatisfactory to say the least.
In so much as you could prove life is or define what life is, another could see God.
If you look into the combinations of genes, or chemicals and their reactions and see some material or physical action reaction relationship, why would it be any different for someone else to see Divinity in the same thing?
Satisfactory evidence that can be put on trial in you psyche to stand up to your cross examination will not happen unless you hold the trial and seek out the evidence yourself.
The truth does not need to self incriminate itself and will be quite satisfied to remain hidden if you feel satisfied to not seek it out.
But, you may not need it, or want it.
I contend the truth is something more serious than Socrates, Avestan Zarathustra, John the Babtist or any other name you wish to associate the concept of God, and that it is in you and can be described in the same terms that these other 'historical' 'prophets' described it, or you could have your own vocabulary for it, but the concepts are the same.
or
I could be wrong.
 | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| ollie - 2007-06-09 12:18 AM
tweeva - 2007-06-10 5:09 PM
Even your statement requires belief: The belief that there is nothing beyond the empirical, phenomenal reality. Can you provide proof to substantiate this belief?
It would be more accurate to say that "I see no evidence of anything beyond or outside of this universe", and "I believe in nothing I don't have good evidence for."
Why do I trust, say, the scientific method? Answer: demonstrable results.
Science has produced good (e. g., established cures for horrible diseases, increased life spans, better health ) and evil (atomic weapons, napalm ) and things like the internet that I am currently using.
Hence, I see the sceintific method as having produced tangible things; (e. g., that atomic weapons work verifies the models of nuclear physics, even though these weapons are evil ).
So, no, I see no contradiction in being strictly secular.
Oh well, I know a thing or two about the "scientific method" (but I'm not a scientist). I work with it every day in the disease fighting area. It's largely the same as the one politicians and statisticians use. One can "prove" anything one likes with numbers. Some scientist sees through some (part of an) aspect of reality, provides a scientific explanation (thus an interpretation) and does the experiments to "prove" this in their common frame of reference, he (preferably) produces some unintelligible formula, et voilà. The fact that this explanation makes no sense whatsoever to anyone else, especially those who are not used to that particular frame of reference, does not really matter much. Scientists tend to have very strong beliefs (in casu: the belief that the phenomenal reality is the only one and that it can be fully proven) and the belief of one scientist may suffice to uphold the illusion that a phenomenon is understood and proven. They are very good at staging entertaining shows.
They also tend to forget about the exceptions to their rules (which they aptly call "the rules of nature"). They are not that important in their frame of reference (that might be the one thing they're right about), and they obscure these inside their premises.
- Others notice, through very carefull observation, that every once in a little while, the rules "simply" seem to change. Do they? How do they do that? I don't claim to know and I don't really care.
While science surely has it's value and merrits it merely provides nothing more and nothing less than a perception of reality which is at, any point in history (or time), incomplete at best.
Or do you believe that the force,which is called "gravity" by a very powerfull scientist, did not exist before it was proven? I'm sure you will agree that it did, yet it was not understood in a scientific frame of reference. What would your position towards this have been? People used this force to their benefit, long before it was "captured" into theories. And what about electricity? Pure magic!
In fact: the mere forces which we, and science, use everyday are not completely understood by scientists (although they will do their best to convince us otherwise). For instance: what exactly is gravity? What causes it? There are theories, built on assumptions and they seem to work and that's ok. The model works and we can send people to the moon. Until something happens that defies the theory, so that it needs to be adjusted. But wait a minute. The theory was proven wasn't it? No worries: the scientific method provides plenty of backdoors. There is no problem in the phenomenal world, science's playground, that science can't prove and solve (in theory). This is exactly their premise and it holds.
- But will it keep on holding?
Seekers are driving us ever forward. The scientific method holds value, but noone should give it more credit than it needs.
Does science really produce tangible results? The results seem tangible but nothing more. Can you proof they remain tangible for the current equivalent timespan of a (very modest) 1000 earth revolutions around it's star? You can not and they won't (remain tangible).
I'm not attached to any scientific "truths" but tend to let scientists have fun in their world, their frame of reference. They sometimes do produce entertaining results. And what about their "mistakes"? Fortunately, I believe there is "more than meets the eye".
What is it? I don't know, I might never fully know and that doesn't really matter. It is entertaining. Knowledge is just part of an empirical world.
There is more.
Some call it God.
The "concept" of God is, by definition, "beyond proof" and this is completely irrelevant.
What is truth anyway? "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".
Do I believe that you can do a perfect one-armed handstand? Yes, I do believe you can, if you believe it.
BTW: I used to be a atheist, until very recently.
What wonders will the future hold?
Tw | |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-10 9:58 AM
Anyway, the purpose of my post was to see if there are any others like myself here; it wasn't to poke a stick in anyone's eye.
By the way, I do my morning meditation while sitting in an easy cross legged postion and I do it because it calms and centers ME; for me this is a perfectly natural, secular thing.
Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!!  | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Wise words indeed. So why the need for any -ism? | |
| | |
| I'm a chemist, and I guess you could call me a scientist if you wished to label me.
I've watched as many politically motivated scientific studies have loaded the dice before measurements were made.
It's enough to rattle the foundations of ones' confidence in science itself.
However, folks that don't get the scientific training or have the notion to analytically critique an experiment or how it is set up wouldn't really notice and continue to be bewildered about how science and our political leadership could ever be so absolutely wrong when acting with the best of intentions based upon scientific evidence.
I'm jaded. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 3:20 PM
I'm a chemist, and I guess you could call me a scientist if you wished to label me.
I've watched as many politically motivated scientific studies have loaded the dice before measurements were made.
It's enough to rattle the foundations of ones' confidence in science itself.
However, folks that don't get the scientific training or have the notion to analytically critique an experiment or how it is set up wouldn't really notice and continue to be bewildered about how science and our political leadership could ever be so absolutely wrong when acting with the best of intentions based upon scientific evidence.
I'm jaded.
Steve,
Seems that we share more than just a few experiences and views... Shouldn't we start a new -ism?
Tw | |
| | |
| Please, please : Start in my Brother SCT's name. He is big in name and fame (sorry, fame and frame)!!! | |
| | |
| LOL
I've already started my own, I advise you to start yours in your name.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 4:03 PM
LOL
I've already started my own, I advise you to start yours in your name.
Somehow, I knew that you did.
And, I did too. | |
| | |
| bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM
Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!!
Thank God. | |
| | |
| Actually this blogger seems to see things in the way that I do:
http://www.agnosticmom.com/2007/01/23/agnostic-mom-worships-a-sun-god/
She calls herself an agnostic. That is what I call myself in public, though I am NOT a theist; I see no evidence for a deity and if there were something grand and wonderful outside of our universe, I doubt that it would be so vain and petty to require worship.
Then again, I could be wrong...
 | |
| | |
| Ollism!!!! | |
| | |
| well
if God is to be 'God' it would need to include everything, right?
that is the good and the bad
Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha
MUUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
have you seen this?
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=7ktlyxqco9 | |
| | |
| I've heard about it, and agree with it.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years). | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
 
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Ollie, this is interesting. You've noted that the idea of a deity is tied to the abridgement of the laws of physics, or, by extension, abandonment of the process of rational thought (which is all that physics really amounts to). So this leads me to two responses. First, it's well established that rational systems may not admit full self-consistency (profoundly demonstrated by Kurt Godel, e.g.). Second, rational systems, by their nature, do not encompass irrational processes. For example, "scientific" explanations of love and desire leave much to be desired in terms of the human experience that they aim to "explain". Or, more to the point, a positivist approach cannot address questions of morality, justice, etc. ("what we ought to do...") in a substantive way. I'll cheerfully admit that I am not fond of teleological explanations of nature, as they are rarely predictive. Anyway. For me, I have no problem in adopting irrational ideas so long as I do not bring them into conflict with what my rational mind demands. For example, I can meditate on Siva and soak in the bliss of Siva (Sivoham, Sivoham); but I would never use a perceived whisper from Siva as a basis for quitting my job or investing my money. To answer your question, I used to be an Atheist, and a very proud, loud, noisy, and cynical one at that. Then Siva reached out and touched me, and everything changed. So, now I am a very quiet atheist, who does not believe that deities influence human affairs or even give a tinker's dam about human affairs; but I find that deities are open to me as a place of peace and refuge, and a place where I can ground myself before and between applying my rational and atheistic mind to the challenges of daily and yearly life. I think this is also what you meant when you wrote of meditation. ... bg | |
| | |
| Thank you, BayGuy. | |
| | |
| ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| OrangeMat - 2007-06-10 12:34 PM
ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
Same difference to some
Tw | |
| | |
| tweeva - 2007-06-11 5:31 PM
Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years ).
evil and good
incorporating everything in proper measure
except, I've eliminated intoxicants and meat
I used to be such a party animal, now I just have my beans and rice or a salad and answer my e-mail, read stories to my kids..............
MAN
I need to go to a big ROCK and ROLL concert or something and groove............
eh
sometimes I feel too old for that now. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-10 2:09 PM
tweeva - 2007-06-11 5:31 PM
Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years ).
evil and good
incorporating everything in proper measure
except, I've eliminated intoxicants and meat
I used to be such a party animal, now I just have my beans and rice or a salad and answer my e-mail, read stories to my kids..............
MAN
I need to go to a big ROCK and ROLL concert or something and groove............
eh
sometimes I feel too old for that now.
Who needs intoxicants?
I recommend attending a TOOL concert. Next best thing to performing yourself. They produce some very "spiritually tainted" rock (never thought I'd write something like this down).
But beware: This is not for the faint of heart. Balancing on the edge for sure.
To get a taste for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlC7oG_2W4&mode=related&search=
You're not too old. You just think you are
Tw
| |
| | |
| OrangeMat - 2007-06-12 5:34 AM
ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
Nope. The non-existence of god means that I am not a god either.
But my irony was intentional. | |
| | |
| tweeva - 2007-06-13 6:07 PM
I recommend attending a TOOL concert. Next best thing to performing yourself. They produce some very "spiritually tainted" rock (never thought I'd write something like this down).
But beware: This is not for the faint of heart. Balancing on the edge for sure.
To get a taste for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlC7oG_2W4&mode=related&search=
Pretty good, but if you want rock, these are your guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEqVAt7s8U
Jonathon | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Well, they used to. 
I'm afraid we're moving waaay off-topic.
Tw
Edited by tweeva 2007-06-12 11:43 AM
| |
| | |
| so like atheist,
I guess maybe, but only in the way that it would be that others so far don't have the definition of God that I do.
I don't expect anybody else to have the same idea that I do
but
I do believe in my belief and part of my belief is that infinity is and all is one
I think I read that on a bottle of soap somewhere | |
| | |
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 3:26 AM
I know that if there is a GOD, that GOD can take care of getting the message out...
I don't have any particular agenda with this, but your comment reminded me of parable:
Old Mrs. Watkins awoke one spring morning to find that the river had flooded the entire first floor of her house. Looking out of her window, she saw that the water was still rising.
Two men passing by on a rowboat shouted up an invitation to row to safety with them. "No, thank you," Mrs. Watkins replied. "The Lord will provide." The men shrugged and rowed on.
By evening, the water level forced Mrs. Watkins to climb on top of the roof for safety. She was spotted by a man in a motorboat, who offered to pick her up. "Don't trouble yourself," she told him. "The Lord will provide."
Pretty soon, Mrs. Watkins had to seek refuge atop the chimney. When a Red Cross cutter came by on patrol, she waved it on, shouting, "The Lord will provide." So the boat left, the water rose, and the old woman drowned.
Dripping wet and thoroughly annoyed, she came through the pearly gates and demanded to speak to God. "What happened?" she cried. "For cryin' out loud, lady," God said. "I sent three boats."
Author Unknown
| |
| | |
| I Am... beyond labels.
Hari Om,
Soul
| |
| | |
| Do ex-atheists count ? 
Atheism is as an honest approach towards the concept of God, as any other. I specially like the militant ones, and feel compasion towards those who are atheists without knowing it. | |
| | |
| SCThornley - 2007-06-12 8:09 AM
tweeva - 2007-06-11 5:31 PM
Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years ).
evil and good
incorporating everything in proper measure
except, I've eliminated intoxicants and meat
I used to be such a party animal, now I just have my beans and rice or a salad and answer my e-mail, read stories to my kids..............
MAN
I need to go to a big ROCK and ROLL concert or something and groove............
eh
sometimes I feel too old for that now.
reminding myself that I'm good and evil is a comfort when I feel like I'm pure evil. I remind myself that I'm only human, so I'm a mix of good and evil. What a weight off my shoulders.
My last concert was the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Amazing how good it was to hoot and holler until my throat was sore and I sounded like I was drinking whiskey all night. Nope, totally sober, and it was way better that way. I like to take sole responsibility for that last encore. | |
| | |
| An atheist is a disallusioned believer. An agnostic is someone who believes that they don't know. If you think you know, you don't; just like if you think that you are humble, you aren't.
If the goal of Yoga is "self-realization", you cannot have a preconcieved idea of the self. Otherwise you are only projecting your own memory (the known) and then "finding" it. (Memory is the past; it is dead.) Only a mind free from preconcieved ideas of the self can find the self or the unknown. You cannot find the unknown with the known. (The unknown is in the present; it is alive.) You can remove the obstacles but you cannot make things like love, creativity or the unknown happen. You can only open yourself so that when they do happen, you can recieve them.
If the goal of Yoga is "union with the divine" and you have a preconcieved idea of the divine you can only experience your own projections again. If you have NOT experienced “the divine,” this is just words. If you HAVE experienced “the divine,” this is just words. | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-18 4:07 PM
If the goal of Yoga is "union with the divine" and you have a preconcieved idea of the divine you can only experience your own projections again. If you have NOT experienced “the divine,” this is just words. If you HAVE experienced “the divine,” this is just words.
Good points, jimg. Thank you for the post.
| |
| | |
| Dear Jiimg:
Thanks for an interesting comment. With very good logic in it, the statement is actually wrong. See below.
Suppose you had one pen which you liked. Now, that pen is lost and you are not happy about this. So, the pen is only in your memory. So, you start searching for the pen which you already knew and is now in your memory. When you find the pen after search, you become happy in the context of finding the pen.
Suppose you never drank orange juice and then met a person from Florida who told you that the organge juice tastes fantastic. But, you have to come to Florida if he has to offer the juice to you. Now, you have not tasted the juice before, but you have a preconceived idea of the juice which you think is real, as you believe in the friend. So, you try your best to get to Florida. Ultimately, if and when you get to Florida, you taste the orange juice and really become happy.
In the Yoga, the former is called "Pratyaksha" pramaana. The later is called "aagama".
Also, I can give you one more example, for the third possibility called "anumaana" which is deduction. This will apply to a person whom you always see happy, but you are only deducing how he reached there.
Now, you can apply the above to "Self-Realization".
jimg - 2007-07-18 4:07 PM
An atheist is a disallusioned believer. An agnostic is someone who believes that they don't know. If you think you know, you don't; just like if you think that you are humble, you aren't.
If the goal of Yoga is "self-realization", you cannot have a preconcieved idea of the self. Otherwise you are only projecting your own memory (the known) and then "finding" it. (Memory is the past; it is dead.) Only a mind free from preconcieved ideas of the self can find the self or the unknown. You cannot find the unknown with the known. (The unknown is in the present; it is alive.) You can remove the obstacles but you cannot make things like love, creativity or the unknown happen. You can only open yourself so that when they do happen, you can recieve them.
If the goal of Yoga is "union with the divine" and you have a preconcieved idea of the divine you can only experience your own projections again. If you have NOT experienced “the divine,” this is just words. If you HAVE experienced “the divine,” this is just words. | |
| | |
| In your example #1, you are looking for a physical object that you have already actually experienced. The actual pen has an existance besides your memory. It is a fixed object in a fixed place. You are finding a known object (the pen) with the known (your memory).
In example #2, it is your imagination that is making the orange juice until you actually experience it. You can go to Florida (a fixed place), find orange juice, and find that it tastes awful or find grapefruit juice and think that it is orange juice. Your preconcieved idea about orange juice has nothing to do with actual orange juice. You are looking for an unknown (orange juice) with the known (your memory or imagination). Since you know where to look (Florida, a known) you can maybe find orange juice, but may not recognize it because it does not fit your preconcieved idea. Even though a friend explained to you what orange juice looks and tastes like, you are interpreting words and cannot "realize" orange juice until you experience it. You may continue to search and never find it because your imagined orange juice never existed except in your imagination. Just like the words on a menu are not the meal, your friend's words are not the orange juice.
In example #3, deduction can be correct or incorrect. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean that it is true. We need to know all the facts before making a truly valid deduction and we never know all of the facts because they are always changing; they are not static and neither are we. | |
| | |
| Wonderful Jimmg. Now, let us go further. Please see ===> below.
jimg - 2007-07-19 3:47 PM
In your example #1, you are looking for a physical object that you have already actually experienced. The actual pen has an existance besides your memory. It is a fixed object in a fixed place. You are finding a known object (the pen) with the known (your memory).
===> Yes. Now, let us take another example. You are looking for a wonderful wife. Wife is no doubt an object as you have seen others having a wife. But, let us say you have no wife uptil now. A possibility. So, you have not experienced a wife (unknown). And, it is not a fixed object in a fixed place. When you find your own wife, you shall become happy. Yes/No?
In example #2, it is your imagination that is making the orange juice until you actually experience it. You can go to Florida (a fixed place), find orange juice, and find that it tastes awful or find grapefruit juice and think that it is orange juice. Your preconcieved idea about orange juice has nothing to do with actual orange juice. You are looking for an unknown (orange juice) with the known (your memory or imagination). Since you know where to look (Florida, a known) you can maybe find orange juice, but may not recognize it because it does not fit your preconcieved idea. Even though a friend explained to you what orange juice looks and tastes like, you are interpreting words and cannot "realize" orange juice until you experience it. You may continue to search and never find it because your imagined orange juice never existed except in your imagination. Just like the words on a menu are not the meal, your friend's words are not the orange juice.
===> Not exactly. In the case of particularly Orange Juice, we are all sure that we shall certainly find it in Florida. (What are you talking abou?) Yes, until you experience the Orange Juice, it is in your imagination. Imagination is not Known, it is actually Unknown. That is why it is imagination. And, that is why it is not a memory. Memory is that of an experineced object (anubhuutavshayaasmpramoshassmrutiH... Patanjali). (You can say it is a memory of imagination. I do not wish to go to that point. ) Now, when you heard of Orange Juice from the friend in Florida, you will go to search it in Florida or experience it in Florida? Not search, but experience. But, anyway. You shall go only if you trust in your friend to be a good source. This good source of Self Realization is called 'aagama' in Sanskrit language. (pratyakshaanugaamaH pramaanani... Patanjali).
In example #3, deduction can be correct or incorrect. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean that it is true. We need to know all the facts before making a truly valid deduction and we never know all of the facts because they are always changing; they are not static and neither are we.
===> Yes, I agree that deduction may be correct or incorrect and you should have all the facts. But, it is a fact that you have seen a person, in my example, to be always happy. That is a fact. And, then you are going to observe that person. That is a fact, and then are going to deduce from his factual behavior the cause of his happiness. Thus, you have sufficient factual evidence. Then, you are going to try to observe those facts in your life and are going to go the happiness yourself. yad yad aacharati shreshthah tat tat itare janaaH... Shreemad Bhagavadgita.
===> Now, let us go into the context of Yoga, Union, Self Realization, and Ultimate Happiness or Moksha, or Nirvana. With no exception, each person is trying to obtain complete and permanent happiness. Sometimes, they run after a small or big or a temporary one. But, they actually want a permanent one. Then they try to obtain it. On the way, they correct mistakes, etc. And, ultimately find it. Then they are know to others as Saints, and then others follow them. How does one know that a Union or Perfect happiness exists. Because, their very nature is happiness (chidaananda ruupo shivoham shivoham.. Nirvanashtakam.) and they have a memory of it in a way. However, they have ignorance that they are body/mind instead of Self. Therefore, they do not experience full happiness. After practice, watching Saints, etc. they understand that they were Self, and not body/mind, which is the Union in Yoga.
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-19 5:44 PM
Wonderful Jimmg. Now, let us go further. Please see ===> below.
jimg - 2007-07-19 3:47 PM
"In your example #1, you are looking for a physical object that you have already actually experienced. The actual pen has an existance besides your memory. It is a fixed object in a fixed place. You are finding a known object (the pen) with the known (your memory).
===> Yes. Now, let us take another example. You are looking for a wonderful wife. Wife is no doubt an object as you have seen others having a wife. But, let us say you have no wife uptil now. A possibility. So, you have not experienced a wife (unknown). And, it is not a fixed object in a fixed place. When you find your own wife, you shall become happy. Yes/No?"
Wives are NOT objects. You don't experience a woman (wife), you experience a relationship. Since this example does not make any sense to me, please find a better example. You said in your first example that it was your pen that you lost and now you are going after a wife because you saw someone enjoying one. At least half of the people who find wives are unhappy, hence the high divorce rate. Happiness doesn't come from another, it comes from yourself.
"In example #2, it is your imagination that is making the orange juice until you actually experience it. You can go to Florida (a fixed place), find orange juice, and find that it tastes awful or find grapefruit juice and think that it is orange juice. Your preconcieved idea about orange juice has nothing to do with actual orange juice. You are looking for an unknown (orange juice) with the known (your memory or imagination). Since you know where to look (Florida, a known) you can maybe find orange juice, but may not recognize it because it does not fit your preconcieved idea. Even though a friend explained to you what orange juice looks and tastes like, you are interpreting words and cannot "realize" orange juice until you experience it. You may continue to search and never find it because your imagined orange juice never existed except in your imagination. Just like the words on a menu are not the meal, your friend's words are not the orange juice.
===> Not exactly. In the case of particularly Orange Juice, we are all sure that we shall certainly find it in Florida."
We are not sure, we are only relying on hearsay and belief, and if we don't know what orange juice is, we cannot be sure to recognize it when we find it.
"(What are you talking abou?) Yes, until you experience the Orange Juice, it is in your imagination. Imagination is not Known, it is actually Unknown."
Imagination is the known projected into the future.
"That is why it is imagination. And, that is why it is not a memory. Memory is that of an experineced object (anubhuutavshayaasmpramoshassmrutiH... Patanjali). (You can say it is a memory of imagination. I do not wish to go to that point. ) Now, when you heard of Orange Juice from the friend in Florida, you will go to search it in Florida or experience it in Florida? Not search, but experience."
You will only experience it if you find it and you will not know whether you found it or not because you don't really know what it is, other than what someone else said. That person may be mistaken or communicated it poorly or you may have misunderstood as you have no real frame of reference.
"In example #3, deduction can be correct or incorrect. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean that it is true. We need to know all the facts before making a truly valid deduction and we never know all of the facts because they are always changing; they are not static and neither are we.
===> Yes, I agree that deduction may be correct or incorrect and you should have all the facts. But, it is a fact that you have seen a person, in my example, to be always happy."
Happy is a totally relative personal and cultural value judgement. People who are stoned on pot appear "happy".
"That is a fact."
Another person's happiness is not a fact, it is an interpretation.
"And, then you are going to observe that person. That is a fact, and then are going to deduce from his factual behavior the cause of his happiness. Thus, you have sufficient factual evidence. Then, you are going to try to observe those facts in your life and are going to go the happiness yourself. yad yad aacharati shreshthah tat tat itare janaaH... Shreemad Bhagavadgita."
Truth repeated is no longer truth. Truth is new from moment to moment.
"Now, let us go into the context of Yoga, Union, Self Realization, and Ultimate Happiness or Moksha, or Nirvana. With no exception, each person is trying to obtain complete and permanent happiness. Sometimes, they run after a small or big or a temporary one. But, they actually want a permanent one. Then they try to obtain it. On the way, they correct mistakes, etc. And, ultimately find it."
Although I also think that this may be true based on the facts that I know and intuition, neither you nor I know this to be true. I consider this idea a working hyphothesis, but it is still either a deduction based on incomplete facts or simply repeating what someone else said. Happiness is not permanent. It is relative and as such cannot be a static state. Happiness only exists is relation to suffering.
"Then they are know to others as Saints, and then others follow them. How does one know that a Union or Perfect happiness exists. Because, their very nature is happiness (chidaananda ruupo shivoham shivoham.. Nirvanashtakam.) and they have a memory of it in a way. However, they have ignorance that they are body/mind instead of Self. Therefore, they do not experience full happiness. After practice, watching Saints, etc. they understand that they were Self, and not body/mind, which is the Union in Yoga.
I think the Union you are talking about is awareness and not happiness. (Again, happiness is a relative emotion caused by the release of endorphins in the brain.) A lot of people have been known as saints throughout history. Many of them have were much less than what their followers expected. Once you follow someone you relinquish critical judgement and become unable to differenciate between a saint and simply an egotistical madman. If you do not have perfect awareness (or happiness as you say) you don't know whether another has it or not. If you are ignorant, you will choose an ignorant saint or guru. If you are perfectly aware, you don't need one. Since there is no path to the truth, you cannot get it from another, you have to find it yourself. The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment. I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
Edited by jimg 2007-07-19 7:02 PM
| |
| | |
| Wonderful. Now, let us go further.
jimg - 2007-07-19 6:55 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-19 5:44 PM
Wonderful Jimmg. Now, let us go further. Please see ===> below.
jimg - 2007-07-19 3:47 PM
"In your example #1, you are looking for a physical object that you have already actually experienced. The actual pen has an existance besides your memory. It is a fixed object in a fixed place. You are finding a known object (the pen) with the known (your memory).
===> Yes. Now, let us take another example. You are looking for a wonderful wife. Wife is no doubt an object as you have seen others having a wife. But, let us say you have no wife uptil now. A possibility. So, you have not experienced a wife (unknown). And, it is not a fixed object in a fixed place. When you find your own wife, you shall become happy. Yes/No?"
Wives are NOT objects. You don't experience a woman (wife), you experience a relationship. Since this example does not make any sense to me, please find a better example. You said in your first example that it was your pen that you lost and now you are going after a wife because you saw someone enjoying one. At least half of the people who find wives are unhappy, hence the high divorce rate. Happiness doesn't come from another, it comes from yourself.
===> When I say wife is an object, I do not mean an object in derogatory way. What I am saying is that you have definitely seen a physical thing called 'wife - a lady related to a man' in someone's case. So, it is not an imagination. I am not going after wife. Everyone is going after her because they feel they shall be happy. I agree with you that happiness does not come from another one. It comes from yourself. And, that yourself is the one to be realized in Yoga, which is the union. Good.
"In example #2, it is your imagination that is making the orange juice until you actually experience it. You can go to Florida (a fixed place), find orange juice, and find that it tastes awful or find grapefruit juice and think that it is orange juice. Your preconcieved idea about orange juice has nothing to do with actual orange juice. You are looking for an unknown (orange juice) with the known (your memory or imagination). Since you know where to look (Florida, a known) you can maybe find orange juice, but may not recognize it because it does not fit your preconcieved idea. Even though a friend explained to you what orange juice looks and tastes like, you are interpreting words and cannot "realize" orange juice until you experience it. You may continue to search and never find it because your imagined orange juice never existed except in your imagination. Just like the words on a menu are not the meal, your friend's words are not the orange juice.
===> Not exactly. In the case of particularly Orange Juice, we are all sure that we shall certainly find it in Florida."
We are not sure, we are only relying on hearsay and belief, and if we don't know what orange juice is, we cannot be sure to recognize it when we find it.
"(What are you talking abou?) Yes, until you experience the Orange Juice, it is in your imagination. Imagination is not Known, it is actually Unknown."
Imagination is the known projected into the future.
===> With this kind of logic, please let me know whether Future is Imagination or a Known.
"That is why it is imagination. And, that is why it is not a memory. Memory is that of an experineced object (anubhuutavshayaasmpramoshassmrutiH... Patanjali). (You can say it is a memory of imagination. I do not wish to go to that point. ) Now, when you heard of Orange Juice from the friend in Florida, you will go to search it in Florida or experience it in Florida? Not search, but experience."
You will only experience it if you find it and you will not know whether you found it or not because you don't really know what it is, other than what someone else said. That person may be mistaken or communicated it poorly or you may have misunderstood as you have no real frame of reference.
===> But, let us say you (meaning an average human being) finds the orange juice as described by their friend. And, they are still not sure whether it is orange juice or not. But, they drink it. Do you think an average human being will feel fantastic with Orange Juice or not?
"In example #3, deduction can be correct or incorrect. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean that it is true. We need to know all the facts before making a truly valid deduction and we never know all of the facts because they are always changing; they are not static and neither are we.
===> Yes, I agree that deduction may be correct or incorrect and you should have all the facts. But, it is a fact that you have seen a person, in my example, to be always happy."
Happy is a totally relative personal and cultural value judgement. People who are stoned on pot appear "happy".
"That is a fact."
Another person's happiness is not a fact, it is an interpretation.
===> With this logic, anything from another person will be an interpretation, including reading your post and logic behind it. So, your logic will be illogical in that sense.
"And, then you are going to observe that person. That is a fact, and then are going to deduce from his factual behavior the cause of his happiness. Thus, you have sufficient factual evidence. Then, you are going to try to observe those facts in your life and are going to go the happiness yourself. yad yad aacharati shreshthah tat tat itare janaaH... Shreemad Bhagavadgita."
Truth repeated is no longer truth. Truth is new from moment to moment.
===> That is an interpretation!
"Now, let us go into the context of Yoga, Union, Self Realization, and Ultimate Happiness or Moksha, or Nirvana. With no exception, each person is trying to obtain complete and permanent happiness. Sometimes, they run after a small or big or a temporary one. But, they actually want a permanent one. Then they try to obtain it. On the way, they correct mistakes, etc. And, ultimately find it."
Although I also think that this may be true based on the facts that I know and intuition, neither you nor I know this to be true. I consider this idea a working hyphothesis, but it is still either a deduction based on incomplete facts or simply repeating what someone else said. Happiness is not permanent. It is relative and as such cannot be a static state. Happiness only exists is relation to suffering.
===> I would conclude this to be interpretation full logic.
===> At this point, we shall need to choose a third party as a wintess to this debate. Because, with the logic based on basic difference we shall never conclude. Whom do you choose?
"Then they are know to others as Saints, and then others follow them. How does one know that a Union or Perfect happiness exists. Because, their very nature is happiness (chidaananda ruupo shivoham shivoham.. Nirvanashtakam.) and they have a memory of it in a way. However, they have ignorance that they are body/mind instead of Self. Therefore, they do not experience full happiness. After practice, watching Saints, etc. they understand that they were Self, and not body/mind, which is the Union in Yoga.
I think the Union you are talking about is awareness and not happiness.
===> That is a matter of terminolgoy.
(Again, happiness is a relative emotion caused by the release of endorphins in the brain.) A lot of people have been known as saints throughout history. Many of them have were much less than what their followers expected. Once you follow someone you relinquish critical judgement and become unable to differenciate between a saint and simply an egotistical madman.
===> That is not a universal truth.
If you do not have perfect awareness (or happiness as you say) you don't know whether another has it or not.
===> Because you do not have a perfect awareness, you are interested in having it. And, you are bothered about whether there exists another one who may have it. If you already have it, you may not be interested in another person. If you already have job, you shall not be looking for jobs, or to know how others find their jobs,e tc. I mean in general.
If you are ignorant, you will choose an ignorant saint or guru.
===> That is an assumption or interpretation.
If you are perfectly aware, you don't need one.
===> Yes, and if you are not perfectly aware, you shall, in general have interest. For example, if one already knows all Yoga, then they shall not be asking questions on yoga.com, in general. If they do not know all Yoga, they may choose to use yoga.com.
Since there is no path to the truth, you cannot get it from another, you have to find it yourself.
===> Finding yourself is also a path.
The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
===> Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. And, whether this is true or not will be an assumption. With assumption, a truth can not be found, as you indicated earlier.
I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
===> How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
| |
| | |
| Neel,
===> I am not trying to win a debate. I am simply sharing my insights (however imperfectly presented) in the hopes that they will stimulate others to find their own insights.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
===>This is my own experience.
===>If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
| |
| | |
| jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
I disagree with the above statement.
Truth is One, there are many paths. The Unlimited is not only reached by one path, otherwise, it is like putting a limit to the Unlimited.
Truth is Eternal. Truth cannot be changing. Truth cannot be false one moment and back to truth again the next moment.
Edited by Kaos 2007-07-20 1:12 PM
| |
| | |
| I agree, Truth as an abstract doesn't change. But, our perception is what is changing and therefore our view of the truth. The only thing that we know or can know is what we percieve and therefore our relationship with truth is constantly changing. It is either growing or regressing. Like the blind men and the elephant, we touch different parts and make different assumptions (many of them false) until we start to get a true picture of the entire elephant. You can call that process "many paths" but it is a process of elimination (of our false assumptions) more than a path. My definition of a path is a fixed way such as if you take I5 from Vancouver BC south you will end up in San Diego or if you combine certain ingredients you will get a cake. These are things that you can learn from another and repeat with the same results. Although you can learn helpful techniques from others to help your process of seeing or realizing the elephant, you still have to find the elephant yourself. If you have a preconcieved idea of what the elephant looks like, you are only hampering your discovery. It is the same in science. When you already think that you know the answer, you are not open to the real answer, you will not find something new, you are not inquiring, only trying to prove that you are right. It is also the same in creative areas such as music. If your mind is trying to make the music, if you are trying to force a particular preconcieved result, you end up just making notes (no matter how technically brilliant) not making music. To make music you need technique, but the difference is that your mind is silent and you are totally open so that the music flows through you. You don't own it; you are only the instrument. | |
| | |
| Darling Jimg: I liked your first post and gathered that you were interested in a healthy debate. There is something called healthy debate which is not arguement for quarrel. That is what I am doing. And, everyone on the board are sharing their insights, knowledge or questions. I am not judging your presentation. I am focussed on the points you are making. And, regardless of what happens I love you, which is one of the elements in your plan.
Now, let me go ahead.
jimg - 2007-07-20 12:29 PM
Neel,
===> I am not trying to win a debate. I am simply sharing my insights (however imperfectly presented) in the hopes that they will stimulate others to find their own insights.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
===> OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
===> This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
===> Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
This is my own experience.
====> I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
===> And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
===> This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-20 2:25 PM
My definition of a path is a fixed way such as if you take I5 from Vancouver BC south you will end up in San Diego.
That is true. Metaphorically speaking, San Diego can be reached from Vancouver by numerous ways, some more direct than others. If one fails and gets lost, he tries again.
So, yes, the Truth is One, there are many paths.
On the other hand, saying that the Truth is One, implies that ultimately, "Vancouver" and "San Diego" are but verbal designations.
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-20 2:43 PM
Darling Jimg: I liked your first post and gathered that you were interested in a healthy debate. There is something called healthy debate which is not arguement for quarrel. That is what I am doing.
===> I'm good with that. I am happy to share my thoughts with you and think about yours. I am also happy to re-evaluate my ideas.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
===>I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
===>Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
This is my own experience.
I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
===>I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
===>Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
| |
| | |
| Dear jimg: Since you have started using arrows like I do , everything is getting mixed up. So, I am starting a new method. Under Discussion1 - We shall complete one round. Then, we go to Discussion 2, etc.
jimg - 2007-07-20 4:56 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-20 2:43 PM
Darling Jimg: I liked your first post and gathered that you were interested in a healthy debate. There is something called healthy debate which is not arguement for quarrel. That is what I am doing.
===> I'm good with that. I am happy to share my thoughts with you and think about yours. I am also happy to re-evaluate my ideas.
Discussion 1:
Neel - Wonderful. I am slightly thinking whether we are talking apples and oranges here. But, anyway, for now, let us continue.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
===>I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
Discussion1
=======
Neel - Please elaborate that experience.
This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
===>Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
Discussion 1
========
Neel - When they find 'what does not change', there is no separation between them and others. Only, when they come to relative plane, they describe that 'what does not change' exists. Similar to your experience which you can not give us. We have to experience it ourselves. Yes? Once your experience is over, and by the time you are telling us anything at this time, that experience and yourself are changing as per your logic. Yes? So, it is NOT your experience then. It is the experience of what you were before, and what you are not now.
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
This is my own experience.
I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
===>I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
Discussion 1
========
Aaahaa! When you say, your own experience. Who is that own? Own is changing. And, your experience is also changing and the experienced is also changing. So, the statement you make has no solidity or is invalid. Who is that you, whose experience is changing, and who is a musician, etc.?
And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
===>Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
Discussion 1
========
Neel - Go to this link. I have not verified the translation to be 100 percent correct. But, it might be close.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/220/1/Nirvana-Shatakam/
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-21 12:10 AM
Dear jimg: Since you have started using arrows like I do , everything is getting mixed up. So, I am starting a new method. Under Discussion1 - We shall complete one round. Then, we go to Discussion 2, etc.
jimg - 2007-07-20 4:56 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-20 2:43 PM
Darling Jimg: I liked your first post and gathered that you were interested in a healthy debate. There is something called healthy debate which is not arguement for quarrel. That is what I am doing.
===> I'm good with that. I am happy to share my thoughts with you and think about yours. I am also happy to re-evaluate my ideas.
Discussion 1:
Neel - Wonderful. I am slightly thinking whether we are talking apples and oranges here. But, anyway, for now, let us continue.
jim-I think that we are talking mangoes.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
===>I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
Discussion1
=======
Neel - Please elaborate that experience.
Jim-The experience is seeing something happen and understanding it. I really can't explain it better than this but can give an example. You are walking down the street and you stub your toe. This is truth. When later that day you tell your wife about it, it is no longer truth but a memory of a memory. Stubbing your toe had many parts to it that were not recorded in your mid to long term memory, so your memory is at best incomplete. When you tell your wife, you are remembering your incomplete memory of a past event, and your verbalization of that memory of an incomplete memory will be even more inaccurate as well as being colored by your emotions and self-image. When you see this process and understand it and its implications with your whole being and not just as words in your head, it is an experience (or at least that is how I am using the word).
This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
===>Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
Discussion 1
========
Neel - When they find 'what does not change', there is no separation between them and others. Only, when they come to relative plane, they describe that 'what does not change' exists. Similar to your experience which you can not give us. We have to experience it ourselves. Yes? Once your experience is over, and by the time you are telling us anything at this time, that experience and yourself are changing as per your logic. Yes? So, it is NOT your experience then. It is the experience of what you were before, and what you are not now.
Jim-Yes. (Although your first sentence is either an assumption or just repeating what someone said.)
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
This is my own experience.
I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
===>I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
Discussion 1
========
Aaahaa! When you say, your own experience. Who is that own? Own is changing. And, your experience is also changing and the experienced is also changing. So, the statement you make has no solidity or is invalid. Who is that you, whose experience is changing, and who is a musician, etc.?
jim-Finding who you really are (not your self-image or identifications or beliefs) is self-realization. My experience (which is always changing) has lead me to the hypothesis (which will also change) that love and creativity are part of this self and that there is a lot more. I know some important parts of how love and creativity work and see a definite similarity between love and creativity and the unknown, truth, God or whatever you want to call it. This is based on my experience, or better said my interpretation (which can also change) of my experience.
And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
===>Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
Discussion 1
========
Neel - Go to this link. I have not verified the translation to be 100 percent correct. But, it might be close.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/220/1/Nirvana-Shatakam/
Jim-Thanks
PS-I just got home from a performance and it is very late so I hope that this makes sense.
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-21 3:40 AM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-21 12:10 AM
Dear jimg: Since you have started using arrows like I do , everything is getting mixed up. So, I am starting a new method. Under Discussion1 - We shall complete one round. Then, we go to Discussion 2, etc.
jimg - 2007-07-20 4:56 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-20 2:43 PM
Darling Jimg: I liked your first post and gathered that you were interested in a healthy debate. There is something called healthy debate which is not arguement for quarrel. That is what I am doing.
===> I'm good with that. I am happy to share my thoughts with you and think about yours. I am also happy to re-evaluate my ideas.
Discussion 1:
=========
Neel - Wonderful. I am slightly thinking whether we are talking apples and oranges here. But, anyway, for now, let us continue.
jim-I think that we are talking mangoes.
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I like ManGoes. Man, let us Go for it.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth. ===>exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
===>I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
Discussion1
=======
Neel - Please elaborate that experience.
Jim-The experience is seeing something happen and understanding it. I really can't explain it better than this but can give an example. You are walking down the street and you stub your toe. This is truth. When later that day you tell your wife about it, it is no longer truth but a memory of a memory. Stubbing your toe had many parts to it that were not recorded in your mid to long term memory, so your memory is at best incomplete. When you tell your wife, you are remembering your incomplete memory of a past event, and your verbalization of that memory of an incomplete memory will be even more inaccurate as well as being colored by your emotions and self-image. When you see this process and understand it and its implications with your whole being and not just as words in your head, it is an experience (or at least that is how I am using the word).
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I see. Now, question: Assuming that you have a 5 year old child who is now about to get his toe stubbed, as you are seeing it: Will you use your memory of the hurt with your stubbing your own toe, and do something about his not getting stubbed, yes/no?
=================================================================
This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
===>Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
Discussion 1
========
Neel - When they find 'what does not change', there is no separation between them and others. Only, when they come to relative plane, they describe that 'what does not change' exists. Similar to your experience which you can not give us. We have to experience it ourselves. Yes? Once your experience is over, and by the time you are telling us anything at this time, that experience and yourself are changing as per your logic. Yes? So, it is NOT your experience then. It is the experience of what you were before, and what you are not now.
Jim-Yes. (Although your first sentence is either an assumption or just repeating what someone said.)
Discussion 2
========
Neel - Yes, I agree that I am quoting what others have said. But, my point of view is 'what others have said' is going to be the basis of my practice, opposite to your plan/idea. Now, due to your stating 'Yes' to my above question, (please read again), the usefulness or validity of your statement becomes useless to others, or even yourself. Possibly, it is useful to you, but not others. Yes/No?
=================================================
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
This is my own experience.
I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
===>I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
Discussion 1
========
Aaahaa! When you say, your own experience. Who is that own? Own is changing. And, your experience is also changing and the experienced is also changing. So, the statement you make has no solidity or is invalid. Who is that you, whose experience is changing, and who is a musician, etc.?
jim-Finding who you really are (not your self-image or identifications or beliefs) is self-realization. My experience (which is always changing) has lead me to the hypothesis (which will also change) that love and creativity are part of this self and that there is a lot more. I know some important parts of how love and creativity work and see a definite similarity between love and creativity and the unknown, truth, God or whatever you want to call it. This is based on my experience, or better said my interpretation (which can also change) of my experience.
Discussion 2
=========
Neel - Firstly, I wish to thank you. As, I am enjoying talking with you and you are not a fluffy guy who changes their logic with time. Thnaks. Now, looking at your above statement, I conclude that your logic is very useful to you, but it is doubtful whether it can be useful in general to others. Yes/No?
And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
===>Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
Discussion 1
========
Neel - Go to this link. I have not verified the translation to be 100 percent correct. But, it might be close.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/220/1/Nirvana-Shatakam/
Jim-Thanks
PS-I just got home from a performance and it is very late so I hope that this makes sense.
Discussion 2
=========
Neel - This was only info. So, do when possible.
===============================================================
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-22 7:18 PM
Dear jimg: Since you have started using arrows like I do , everything is getting mixed up. So, I am starting a new method. Under Discussion1 - We shall complete one round. Then, we go to Discussion 2, etc.
Thankyou Neel.
This is a brilliant discussion, but the post's were making me completely lost
Jonathon
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | No Kidding Jonnie.
I wish ya'll would learn how to use the "quote" feature...because I can't understand who is saying what???!!!! This discussion sure is mighty interestin' though,
NB, do you not know how to start and end your quotes?? It goes like this....whenever you want to quote someone...you either copy and paste the text or hit the quote instead of reply....then, you make sure that at the beginning of each individual quote...it looks like this....I'm going to use these { }brackets to demonstrate, but, the actual one you use are these: [ ]
Here goes... to quote me, Cyndi say's above...... type it just like this.....
{quote} I wish ya'll would learn how to use the "quote" feature...because I can't understand who is saying what???!!!! This discussion sure is mighty interestin' though, {/quote}
and if you do...it should look like this:
I wish ya'll would learn how to use the "quote" feature...because I can't understand who is saying what???!!!! This discussion sure is mighty interestin' though,
Notice the forward slash at the end quote...did ya get that??? God I hope so,
Edited by Cyndi 2007-07-21 6:41 PM
| |
| | |
| I like to use QUOTE option. But, when used too many times, it creates a problem to be solved by Ollie's kind. But, I shall use it properly henceforth. | |
| | |
|
Discussion 1:
=========
Neel - Wonderful. I am slightly thinking whether we are talking apples and oranges here. But, anyway, for now, let us continue.
jim-I think that we are talking mangoes.
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I like ManGoes. Man, let us Go for it.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth.
Jim-exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
Neel-OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
Jim-I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
Discussion1
=======
Neel - Please elaborate that experience.
Jim-The experience is seeing something happen and understanding it. I really can't explain it better than this but can give an example. You are walking down the street and you stub your toe. This is truth. When later that day you tell your wife about it, it is no longer truth but a memory of a memory. Stubbing your toe had many parts to it that were not recorded in your mid to long term memory, so your memory is at best incomplete. When you tell your wife, you are remembering your incomplete memory of a past event, and your verbalization of that memory of an incomplete memory will be even more inaccurate as well as being colored by your emotions and self-image. When you see this process and understand it and its implications with your whole being and not just as words in your head, it is an experience (or at least that is how I am using the word).
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I see. Now, question: Assuming that you have a 5 year old child who is now about to get his toe stubbed, as you are seeing it: Will you use your memory of the hurt with your stubbing your own toe, and do something about his not getting stubbed, yes/no?
Jim-Maybe yes and maybe no. If I let him stub his toe I am allowing him to learn for himself. If I stop him from stubbing his toe, he doesn't have a stubbed toe but also probably didn't learn anything and will continue to stub his toe when I'm not there.
=================================================================
Neel-This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
Jim-Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
Discussion 1
========
Neel - When they find 'what does not change', there is no separation between them and others. Only, when they come to relative plane, they describe that 'what does not change' exists. Similar to your experience which you can not give us. We have to experience it ourselves. Yes? Once your experience is over, and by the time you are telling us anything at this time, that experience and yourself are changing as per your logic. Yes? So, it is NOT your experience then. It is the experience of what you were before, and what you are not now.
Jim-Yes. (Although your first sentence is either an assumption or just repeating what someone said.)
Discussion 2
========
Neel - Yes, I agree that I am quoting what others have said. But, my point of view is 'what others have said' is going to be the basis of my practice, opposite to your plan/idea. Now, due to your stating 'Yes' to my above question, (please read again), the usefulness or validity of your statement becomes useless to others, or even yourself. Possibly, it is useful to you, but not others. Yes/No?
Jim-It is useful to me but only useful to others as encouragement to find their own truth. (I am not against using everything available as a resource; I encourage it to myself and to others. I only disagree with the practice of limiting the resources to those that fit a particular path or method.)
=================================================
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
Jim-This is my own experience.
Neel-I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
Jim-I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
Discussion 1
========
Aaahaa! When you say, your own experience. Who is that own? Own is changing. And, your experience is also changing and the experienced is also changing. So, the statement you make has no solidity or is invalid. Who is that you, whose experience is changing, and who is a musician, etc.?
jim-Finding who you really are (not your self-image or identifications or beliefs) is self-realization. My experience (which is always changing) has lead me to the hypothesis (which will also change) that love and creativity are part of this self and that there is a lot more. I know some important parts of how love and creativity work and see a definite similarity between love and creativity and the unknown, truth, God or whatever you want to call it. This is based on my experience, or better said my interpretation (which can also change) of my experience.
Discussion 2
=========
Neel - Firstly, I wish to thank you. As, I am enjoying talking with you and you are not a fluffy guy who changes their logic with time. Thnaks. Now, looking at your above statement, I conclude that your logic is very useful to you, but it is doubtful whether it can be useful in general to others. Yes/No?
Jim-It is useful to me and I encourage everyone to find what is useful for them (which may be very different). What was useful for me when I was 16, 20, 30, 40 or 50 is different today and what is useful for me when I am 60 will also be different. Since this entire reality that we live in is changing we need to also change. Assuming that a reality that is timeless and changeless exists doesn't change the fact that the world of matter and energy (body and mind) is constantly changing. We are also part of that constantly changing matter and energy regardless of what is going on outside that continuum or whether we have recognized that timeless state or not. This is why I am convinced that the only answer is awareness (which is flexible), not following any method (which is static). Only awareness can change with the demands of the changing world; only awareness continues to grow.
I used to go home from work for lunch. Often I would have a problem (like a computer programming problem) that I couldn't solve. After enjoying lunch with my wife and daughters I would return to work. As I pulled into the parking lot, the answer to my problem would just come to me (even though I hadn't thought about during lunch). I'm sure many other people have experienced the same kind of thing. The reason that I couldn't find the answer at work was because my mind was limiting the possible solutions. I had a preconcieved idea of the answer and could not see clearly, could not "think outside of the box". Once I was removed from my own mental limitations (preconcieved ideas), the answer was clear. The same concept applies to love, creativity and enlightenment. If the unenlightened (unloving, uncreative) mind decides what enlightenment (love, creativity) is and then tries to attain it, that mind will not find it as it will only be looking for that which is unenlightened (unloving, uncreative), that which it already knows. That mind will not recognize enlightenment unless it fits his or her unenlightened idea of what enlightenment is. This is why I believe that the best "path" is to not follow a path, but rather remove the limitations, so that love, creativity and enlightenment can florish.
Neel-And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
Jim-If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
Jim-Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
Discussion 1
========
Neel - Go to this link. I have not verified the translation to be 100 percent correct. But, it might be close.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/220/1/Nirvana-Shatakam/
Jim-Thanks
===============================================================
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-22 3:32 AM
Discussion 1:
=========
Neel - Wonderful. I am slightly thinking whether we are talking apples and oranges here. But, anyway, for now, let us continue.
jim-I think that we are talking mangoes.
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I like ManGoes. Man, let us Go for it.
jimg-The is no path to truth because there can only be a path between two fixed places and you are not a fixed place and truth is also new each moment.
kulkarnn-Truth is new each moment is an assumption. And, if it were a new each moment, there is nothing to find, as what you found is going to be renewed and no more truth.
Jim-exactly! That is why we need to develop awareness. Truth is just like love and creativity. It flows through you when you are open and as soon as you try to hold on to it (to own it, to keep it), it dissappears.
Neel-OK. This is what I gather from this. First, we have to assume or accept that Truth is like love and creativity and renews each moment. And, due to this assumption, the path is 'NOT to hold on to anything', but just be aware of happening and let them come and embrace them with love. No problem, but actually to follow this path, you are still holding on to one thing, 'that is the orginal assumption'.
Jim-I don't consider it an assumption if it is a result of experience.
Discussion1
=======
Neel - Please elaborate that experience.
Jim-The experience is seeing something happen and understanding it. I really can't explain it better than this but can give an example. You are walking down the street and you stub your toe. This is truth. When later that day you tell your wife about it, it is no longer truth but a memory of a memory. Stubbing your toe had many parts to it that were not recorded in your mid to long term memory, so your memory is at best incomplete. When you tell your wife, you are remembering your incomplete memory of a past event, and your verbalization of that memory of an incomplete memory will be even more inaccurate as well as being colored by your emotions and self-image. When you see this process and understand it and its implications with your whole being and not just as words in your head, it is an experience (or at least that is how I am using the word).
Discussion 2
========
Neel - I see. Now, question: Assuming that you have a 5 year old child who is now about to get his toe stubbed, as you are seeing it: Will you use your memory of the hurt with your stubbing your own toe, and do something about his not getting stubbed, yes/no?
Jim-Maybe yes and maybe no. If I let him stub his toe I am allowing him to learn for himself. If I stop him from stubbing his toe, he doesn't have a stubbed toe but also probably didn't learn anything and will continue to stub his toe when I'm not there.
Discussion 3
==========
Neel - Thanks jimg. So, there is no 'Definite NO'. It is 'May be Yes or May be No'. However, stubbing toe is only one example, as you gave it. Can be murdering someone, or drinking alcohol, or taking drugs. Will you feel the same in all these cases or slightly different? But, I accept your logic above.
=================================================================
Neel-This method shall work fine. But, actually, in Yoga Philosophy (which is definitely a product of realization and experience of Yogis, and not an assumption or imagination.), the statement you made already exists. However, that statement applies to nature called as Prakruti, or the material universe. In the material universe, nothing is constant, and is changing each moment. Material world includes all phenomena dealing with body, mind, and external perceptible universe. A Yoga Student is supposed to be accepting to all these continuously changing material things and happenings. However, it has been experienced by people that they are not totally satisfied with this. They want to find something beyond which probably does not change. In this attempt, they found what does not change.
Then they told that to others. And, others practice accordingly.
Jim-Until the "others" find "what does not change", they and the telling are all part of the constantly changing world. Even after finding "what does not change", their material and energy existance is part of the constantly changing world (this is an assumption based on deduction and although probably true could also be false.)
Discussion 1
========
Neel - When they find 'what does not change', there is no separation between them and others. Only, when they come to relative plane, they describe that 'what does not change' exists. Similar to your experience which you can not give us. We have to experience it ourselves. Yes? Once your experience is over, and by the time you are telling us anything at this time, that experience and yourself are changing as per your logic. Yes? So, it is NOT your experience then. It is the experience of what you were before, and what you are not now.
Jim-Yes. (Although your first sentence is either an assumption or just repeating what someone said.)
Discussion 2
========
Neel - Yes, I agree that I am quoting what others have said. But, my point of view is 'what others have said' is going to be the basis of my practice, opposite to your plan/idea. Now, due to your stating 'Yes' to my above question, (please read again), the usefulness or validity of your statement becomes useless to others, or even yourself. Possibly, it is useful to you, but not others. Yes/No?
Jim-It is useful to me but only useful to others as encouragement to find their own truth. (I am not against using everything available as a resource; I encourage it to myself and to others. I only disagree with the practice of limiting the resources to those that fit a particular path or method.)
Discussion 3
========
That is wonderful. In the Yoga Philosophy, there is no limit to paths, as Kaos, himself said in response to your statement that there is only one path. See Patanjali first chapter: yathaabhimatadhyaanadvaa... By adopting any principle of one's own choice (is the method to self realization). See upanishad - ekam sat sadvipraa bahudaa vadanti (same truth or principle is expressed in varied ways by many sages.) ETC ETC. I can quote upto 100.
=================================================
jimg-I am not saying that there are not excellent resources out there (including writings and even this forum), but rather that things like love, creativity and the divine (Union) cannot be found by seeking, cannot be bargined for or earned; they are only available to those who have removed the obstacles and been open to them when they come.
kulkarnn-How did you get this logic? From another one or from within?
Jim-This is my own experience.
Neel-I can accept that this is your experience. But, my question is: Before you experienced, "where did you get this logic or idea that you should be open to acceptance with love and creativity, etc.". I am sure that you got at least part of that idea from the external.
Jim-I got the logic from seeing (being aware) of what I do; what works and what doesn't. As a musician, I have analysed the creative process and have come to these conclusions. Aren't you aware of love and how it comes to you as well as how it doesn't? Aren't you aware of your frame of mind when you get to see glimpses of the divine? In those timeless moments when you stop being a seperate being and become part of everything and everything part of you, don't you think about it and come to conclusions?
Discussion 1
========
Aaahaa! When you say, your own experience. Who is that own? Own is changing. And, your experience is also changing and the experienced is also changing. So, the statement you make has no solidity or is invalid. Who is that you, whose experience is changing, and who is a musician, etc.?
jim-Finding who you really are (not your self-image or identifications or beliefs) is self-realization. My experience (which is always changing) has lead me to the hypothesis (which will also change) that love and creativity are part of this self and that there is a lot more. I know some important parts of how love and creativity work and see a definite similarity between love and creativity and the unknown, truth, God or whatever you want to call it. This is based on my experience, or better said my interpretation (which can also change) of my experience.
Discussion 2
=========
Neel - Firstly, I wish to thank you. As, I am enjoying talking with you and you are not a fluffy guy who changes their logic with time. Thnaks. Now, looking at your above statement, I conclude that your logic is very useful to you, but it is doubtful whether it can be useful in general to others. Yes/No?
Jim-It is useful to me and I encourage everyone to find what is useful for them (which may be very different). What was useful for me when I was 16, 20, 30, 40 or 50 is different today and what is useful for me when I am 60 will also be different. Since this entire reality that we live in is changing we need to also change. Assuming that a reality that is timeless and changeless exists doesn't change the fact that the world of matter and energy (body and mind) is constantly changing. We are also part of that constantly changing matter and energy regardless of what is going on outside that continuum or whether we have recognized that timeless state or not. This is why I am convinced that the only answer is awareness (which is flexible), not following any method (which is static). Only awareness can change with the demands of the changing world; only awareness continues to grow.
I used to go home from work for lunch. Often I would have a problem (like a computer programming problem) that I couldn't solve. After enjoying lunch with my wife and daughters I would return to work. As I pulled into the parking lot, the answer to my problem would just come to me (even though I hadn't thought about during lunch). I'm sure many other people have experienced the same kind of thing. The reason that I couldn't find the answer at work was because my mind was limiting the possible solutions. I had a preconcieved idea of the answer and could not see clearly, could not "think outside of the box". Once I was removed from my own mental limitations (preconcieved ideas), the answer was clear. The same concept applies to love, creativity and enlightenment. If the unenlightened (unloving, uncreative) mind decides what enlightenment (love, creativity) is and then tries to attain it, that mind will not find it as it will only be looking for that which is unenlightened (unloving, uncreative), that which it already knows. That mind will not recognize enlightenment unless it fits his or her unenlightened idea of what enlightenment is. This is why I believe that the best "path" is to not follow a path, but rather remove the limitations, so that love, creativity and enlightenment can florish.
Discussion 3
=========
Wonderful. I also understand your solving computer problem example. And, that is what exactly Yoga Path means. yogashchittavrutiinirodhaH..... Patanjali 2nd sutra. In this the Sage Patanjali is indicating that all pre-habituated fluctuations should be stopped, so that a proper understanding shall come. nirvichaaravaishaaradye (after getting skill in not having preconceived ideas) adhyaatmaprasaadaH (real understanding shall dawn). ritamharaa tratra prajnaa (his interllect will be Truth filled). shrutaanumaana prajnaabhyaamanyavishayaa.... (the understanding from such intellect is different and not confined to that from 'what others said' and 'what is from deduction'). ETC. What is happening is: You are suggesting is that a person should give up all paths so that he can follow this 'awareness' thing as you call it. What the path of Yoga is telling is: follow certain practices so that preconceived ideas shall be modified and removed so that one shall get used to 'pure awareness'. After the awareness is developed there is no need of practices.
Neel-And, that source is 'aagama', 'saint' or 'teacher', as you appropriately wrote as 'excellent sources'.
Jim-If you can let go of seeking, being a Brahmin, the beliefs, the identifications, the saints, the gurus, the sutras, and the ideas of Samadhi or Nirvana, you can be free and open to love, creativity and the divine. As long as you hold on to them, you can only see through that filter and cannot see the whole or experience the unknown. Try it; you'll see! Or if you prefer, ignore all of this because these ideas don't fit you where you are right now.
This idea is already expressed in Yoga Philosophy. In fact, I am surprised that all the words you used are exactly used the same way. Read: Nirvanashatakam of Shree Adi Shankaracharya.
Jim-Although these are my words, I appreciate that others have similar ideas. Where can I get "Nirvanashatakam"?
Discussion 1
========
Neel - Go to this link. I have not verified the translation to be 100 percent correct. But, it might be close.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/220/1/Nirvana-Shatakam/
Jim-Thanks
===============================================================
| |
| | |
| Hello Neel,
Neel-"What is happening is: You are suggesting is that a person should give up all paths so that he can follow this 'awareness' thing as you call it. What the path of Yoga is telling is: follow certain practices so that preconceived ideas shall be modified and removed so that one shall get used to 'pure awareness'. After the awareness is developed there is no need of practices."
It seems to me that you are saying that if you follow the yogic "Path", using predetermined methods and following the holy texts, you will get to "pure awareness." You still allow that at that point or earlier, your preconcieved ideas must be removed and you must transcend the words and experience that which is beyond words.
What I am saying is that if you remove your personal and cultural conditioning, your beliefs and indentifications, your physical and mental blockages, your seeking and methodologies, and develop your awareness, you will get to "pure awareness." (Since "pure awareness" is there in the first place, all you have to do is remove your obstacles, just like the love and creativity examples.) I also acknowledge that external inputs are not only useful but required as otherwise you can lose your frame of reference. (You have to be careful not to get lost when not using a predetermined path!)
I think that we are kind of saying the same thing from two different angles!
There is one important thing that we have both forgotten to mention. That is balance! As long as you or I cling to one side or the other, we will not have balance. Attachment to the part while ignoring the whole puts us out of balance. Taking sides requires force (which is violence). Seeing both the parts and the whole is peace. Peace is active without force.
Namaste,
Jim
P.S. You probably noticed that I view things in a non-dualistic way; ie matter and energy are the same, mind and body are the same, all is one and one is all, etc etc. although these are again only words or simple symbols instead of reality.
| |
| | |
| Discussion 4
=============
Jim: Hello Neel "What is happening is: You are suggesting is that a person should give up all paths so that he can follow this 'awareness' thing as you call it. What the path of Yoga is telling is: follow certain practices so that preconceived ideas shall be modified and removed so that one shall get used to 'pure awareness'. After the awareness is developed there is no need of practices."
It seems to me that you are saying that if you follow the yogic "Path", using predetermined methods and following the holy texts, you will get to "pure awareness." You still allow that at that point or earlier, your preconcieved ideas must be removed and you must transcend the words and experience that which is beyond words.
What I am saying is that if you remove your personal and cultural conditioning, your beliefs and indentifications, your physical and mental blockages, your seeking and methodologies, and develop your awareness, you will get to "pure awareness." (Since "pure awareness" is there in the first place, all you have to do is remove your obstacles, just like the love and creativity examples.) I also acknowledge that external inputs are not only useful but required as otherwise you can lose your frame of reference. (You have to be careful not to get lost when not using a predetermined path!)
I think that we are kind of saying the same thing from two different angles!
Neel - Dear Jim. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is: In 99 percent cases, they have to follow various paths, holy texts, prescribed methods, and only then they shall reach the purity of pure awareness. yogaangaanushthaanadashuddhikshaye jnanadiiptiraavivekakhyaateH... Patanjali (by following practices of yoga, the impurity is removed andpurity of pure awarness dawns). Only, in rare cases, where the purity already has reached, a self enquiry can be done. (The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
Jim: There is one important thing that we have both forgotten to mention. That is balance! As long as you or I cling to one side or the other, we will not have balance. Attachment to the part while ignoring the whole puts us out of balance. Taking sides requires force (which is violence). Seeing both the parts and the whole is peace. Peace is active without force.
Neel - I could not understand stand this statement.
Jim - P.S. You probably noticed that I view things in a non-dualistic way; ie matter and energy are the same, mind and body are the same, all is one and one is all, etc etc. although these are again only words or simple symbols instead of reality.
Neel - Yes, I noticed that in a way. In the non dualistic philosophy, matter and energy are same, and they are only material expression of brahman which is the substratum and which is the one beyond. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-23 9:51 AM
(The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
Sorry for the interruption. Thank you Neel for pointing that out.
Yes, it's true, many people are attracted to the wisdom part but most are not ready for the method.
| |
| | |
| Kaos - 2007-07-23 10:25 AM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-23 9:51 AM
(The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
Sorry for the interruption. Thank you Neel for pointing that out.
Yes, it's true, many people are attracted to the wisdom part but most are not ready for the method.
I agree, to an extent, however may find some pointed differences on specific points of possible debate.
From what I see if you go around the world most everyone is not ready, and will probably never be ready at least in this short life.
I don't see that the 'Western' mind is any less ready, however because of the inquisitiveness of a culture founded on Religious Freedoms [in the New World, in the USA] the culture of those who still believe in Religious Freedom makes it possible to freely consider other viewpoints that are culturally different in opposition to those that do not believe in such Freedom.
That being said, it is obvious that Religious Freedom and the concept of such a Freedom is not very well practiced or comprehended by many.
So yes, with the fundamentals of the statement I may agree, however, not with the cultural bias.
It is up to individuals, great and small, to make the journey not entire civilizations or cultures.
| |
| | |
| SCThornley - 2007-07-23 10:40 AM
From what I see if you go around the world most everyone is not ready, and will probably never be ready at least in this short life.
I don't see that the 'Western' mind is any less ready, however because of the inquisitiveness of a culture founded on Religious Freedoms [in the New World, in the USA] the culture of those who still believe in Religious Freedom makes it possible to freely consider other viewpoints that are culturally different in opposition to those that do not believe in such Freedom.
That being said, it is obvious that Religious Freedom and the concept of such a Freedom is not very well practiced or comprehended by many.
So yes, with the fundamentals of the statement I may agree, however, not with the cultural bias.
It is up to individuals, great and small, to make the journey not entire civilizations or cultures.
That is true.
It is karma at work.
| |
| | |
| While many people including non-Westerners are interested in the wisdom part, most are not ready for the method part.
Karma ensures that most people have to spend their lives working or doing other external activities. There's the statement "most people are not ready for the method" part comes in.
| |
| | |
| Dear Brother SCT: Just to clarify: I did not mean that Western mind is less ready for self enquiry, and non Western is more ready for it. What I meant was: method of practices (as against only self enquiry) is more accepted and followed in the non western world. Whereas, in the western world,due to appeal of Self Enquiry and non-association with practiced, Self Enquiry is proclaimed, though they are not ready for it (similary to other 99 percent in the entire world).
SCThornley - 2007-07-23 10:40 AM
Kaos - 2007-07-23 10:25 AM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-23 9:51 AM
(The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
Sorry for the interruption. Thank you Neel for pointing that out.
Yes, it's true, many people are attracted to the wisdom part but most are not ready for the method.
I agree, to an extent, however may find some pointed differences on specific points of possible debate.
From what I see if you go around the world most everyone is not ready, and will probably never be ready at least in this short life.
I don't see that the 'Western' mind is any less ready, however because of the inquisitiveness of a culture founded on Religious Freedoms [in the New World, in the USA] the culture of those who still believe in Religious Freedom makes it possible to freely consider other viewpoints that are culturally different in opposition to those that do not believe in such Freedom.
That being said, it is obvious that Religious Freedom and the concept of such a Freedom is not very well practiced or comprehended by many.
So yes, with the fundamentals of the statement I may agree, however, not with the cultural bias.
It is up to individuals, great and small, to make the journey not entire civilizations or cultures.
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-23 11:35 AM
Dear Brother SCT: Just to clarify: I did not mean that Western mind is less ready for self enquiry, and non Western is more ready for it. What I meant was: method of practices (as against only self enquiry) is more accepted and followed in the non western world. Whereas, in the western world,due to appeal of Self Enquiry and non-association with practiced, Self Enquiry is proclaimed, though they are not ready for it (similary to other 99 percent in the entire world).
(The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
These are very arrogant statements! They are based on prejudices not facts.
Faith and belief are the inability to accept that you don't know. Accepting that you don't know is the first step to any serious inquiry.
| |
| | |
| Darling jimg: I could not understand what is arrogant in these statements. Please explain. As for the facts, I have taught at least 5000 students in the Western world and have associated with more than 10000 Yoga persons (not fluffy, but serious) and what I wrote matches with what I found. Many persons who follow Self Enquiry method have approached me for advice.
Let us revert back to our mangoes (discussion) soon. And, forget our personalities.
Peace
jimg - 2007-07-24 1:22 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-07-23 11:35 AM
Dear Brother SCT: Just to clarify: I did not mean that Western mind is less ready for self enquiry, and non Western is more ready for it. What I meant was: method of practices (as against only self enquiry) is more accepted and followed in the non western world. Whereas, in the western world,due to appeal of Self Enquiry and non-association with practiced, Self Enquiry is proclaimed, though they are not ready for it (similary to other 99 percent in the entire world).
(The method depicted of self enquiry in modern books, especially in the Western circles, appeals to the western mind, but actually does not work as they are not ready for that method.)
These are very arrogant statements! They are based on prejudices not facts.
Faith and belief are the inability to accept that you don't know. Accepting that you don't know is the first step to any serious inquiry.
| |
| | |
| Dear Neel,
Please understand that I am saying that the statements are arrogant, not that you as a person are arrogant (although I'm sure that you have your moments, as do I and everyone else). I'm sure that you are a wonderful fellow and I meant no disrespect! What is arrogant is the assumption that you (or anyone else) know who is ready for Self Enquiry (or anything else) and who is not without knowing these people and that 99% are ready and 1% are not. (Even if you know someone, judging them is arrogant.) Prejudice is assuming that all (or most) people that belong to a certain group conform to the characteristics of those (from that group) that you have known, heard about or imagined. Whether you have known 1 or 10,000 individuals, projecting their characteristics on others is still prejudice as the difference between individuals in any group is greater than the difference between groups as a whole. (I'm sure that you have experienced prejudice against yourself by American people who stereotype Indians. I have also lived and worked in foriegn countries and experienced this. Prejudice is the result of group or cultural identifications and projecting the known (those that I have known) on the unknown (those that I don't know)). I hope that I'm not boring you, but I keep coming back to the idea that we need to let go of the known to experience the unknown. This philosophy has echoed around the world independently in every time and in almost every culture. Does that make it true? No. Does that increase the likelihood of its truth? Yes.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-24 1:22 PM
These are very arrogant statements! They are based on prejudices not facts.
I wonder where the arrogance and prejudice is coming from?
:roll:
jimg
Faith and belief are the inability to accept that you don't know. Accepting that you don't know is the first step to any serious inquiry.
It's the other way around.
What you know are the first steps.
Then one progressively unlearns what one "knew".
Since man's intellectual capacity is limited. The Unlimited cannot be grasped by the intellect and concepts alone.
As one evolves, one realizes that "one doesn't know".
Edited by Kaos 2007-07-24 4:52 PM
| |
| | |
| >Please explain. As for the facts, I have taught at least 5000 students in the Western world and have associated with more than 10000 Yoga persons (not fluffy, but serious) and what I wrote matches with what I found. Many persons who follow Self Enquiry method have approached me for advice.
Question: And these statements NOT make you arrogant how??? | |
| | |
| Jambo - 2007-07-24 6:24 PM
>Please explain. As for the facts, I have taught at least 5000 students in the Western world and have associated with more than 10000 Yoga persons (not fluffy, but serious) and what I wrote matches with what I found. Many persons who follow Self Enquiry method have approached me for advice.
Question: And these statements NOT make you arrogant how???
experienced, yes
knowledgeable, yes
arrogant, no
Neel is a humble, giving soul and provides his light on this forum free of charge,
I pray that we all can know the difference between free knowledge flowing like a spring and the brackish tide waters of arrogance | |
| | |
| >experienced, yes
knowledgeable, yes
arrogant, no
Neel is a humble, giving soul and provides his light on this forum free of charge,
I pray that we all can know the difference between free knowledge flowing like a spring and the brackish tide waters of arrogance<
How so? | |
| | |
| just pay attention
and
have enough patience to change your point of view | |
| | |
| Darling jimg: Let us first continue our original discussion which we were enjoying. You said that my statements were not facts, but prejudices for Western public or such. My wife is a white american and 95 percent of my students are also non Indian at this time. So, there is no prejudice. We love each other. But, since you said 'no facts', I told you what the fact is and where I arrived at the conclusion. Now, you call my fact also arrogance. So, let us accept that I am arrogant, and focus on what I am saying and not my arrogance. Let us continue our discussion. | |
| | |
| Neel,
Your last post really embodies Yoga in both theory and practise.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| You didn't understand what I said about prejudice. I wasn't talking about racial or national prejudice. I was talking about the prejudice of projecting what you know about some people on other people that you don't know. That is what you are doing when you make generalizations about other people. If I may quote Friedrich Nietzsche - "There are no facts, only interpretations." I would also like to quote Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - "A person hears only what they understand."
I think that we may be talking apples and oranges. I think that you are talking religion and I am talking philosophy. (Yes you are talking philosophy, but within the context of your religion.)
Regards,
Jim
| |
| | |
| Dear jimg: With all respects to the two persons you quoted, and with your previous logic: All your statements need not be heard as they shall be changing as per your changing experience and with change in our hearing and with the change in yoga.com board, and with change in language and change in Change.
But, there is only one way that logic is going to work: That is, if one keeps complete Silence.
As for this thread, I shall either wait on your going back to our Discussion, or I shall wait on or at least keep my own Silence.
Peace (Hope that does not change) and Love (Shall stay love with change as Love can be expressed in many ways!!!) | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-25 12:28 PM
You didn't understand what I said about prejudice. I wasn't talking about racial or national prejudice. I was talking about the prejudice of projecting what you know about some people on other people that you don't know. That is what you are doing when you make generalizations about other people. If I may quote Friedrich Nietzsche - "There are no facts, only interpretations." I would also like to quote Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - "A person hears only what they understand."
I think that we may be talking apples and oranges. I think that you are talking religion and I am talking philosophy. (Yes you are talking philosophy, but within the context of your religion.)
Regards,
Jim
Namaste jim,
Perhaps, you may want to stand back and reflect where all this perception of "arrogance", and "prejudice" that you introduced, is coming from, in your discussion with Neel.
Truth, cannot be arrogant, nor prejudiced.
Therefore, where is "arrogance" and "prejudice" originating from with you and Neel? It can only arise from the ego-personality. Who introduced the perception of "arrogance" and "prejudice"?
I think, you should apologize to Neel and to this board.
Edited by Kaos 2007-07-25 2:51 PM
| |
| | |
| No, no. Jimb, you do not have to apologize. Just forget this part and let us go to discussion or some other topic. My suggestion would be to focus on discussion, because this is a discussion board. I am not verifying whether one is doing what I suggested. But, let me add one more thing, eventhough I stated that I shall be silent.
What you are saying about judging others is to some extent true. That one should not judge others. But, just imagine that I have been Yoga Instructor for long. Now, if someone comes to me and asks me how to become flexible, I have to judge their currnet body condition and then suggest. I can not say: Everything is fine and everything is changing with time, so do not worry.
My statement about Westerners more interested in Self Enquiry has resulted from the above situation. But, I am also saying that non Westerners are also not ready for Self Enquiry. But, Westerners think they should take up that path, and non Westerners are able to follow the prescribed methods. Even watching the events as they come and accepting them is a presribed method of some sort. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-25 5:13 PM
Neel-What you are saying about judging others is to some extent true. That one should not judge others. But, just imagine that I have been Yoga Instructor for long. Now, if someone comes to me and asks me how to become flexible, I have to judge their currnet body condition and then suggest. I can not say: Everything is fine and everything is changing with time, so do not worry.
Jim-When someone is asking for technical advice (ie how do I become more flexible or whatever) of course you must assess their current flexibility and look for what is blocking their natural flexibility potential before you can suggest a course of action. That is not judging that person but rather responding to their request with an educated answer. Everything is still changing with time. but your response to that individual is how (in your opinion, whether experienced or not) to facilitate a change in direction, in the continuum of change that is already taking place. I am hoping that neither your suggestions nor that person's body will be static.
Neel-My statement about Westerners more interested in Self Enquiry has resulted from the above situation. But, I am also saying that non Westerners are also not ready for Self Enquiry. But, Westerners think they should take up that path, and non Westerners are able to follow the prescribed methods. Even watching the events as they come and accepting them is a presribed method of some sort.
Jim-The above situation is probably not a representative sample of Westerners, although I agree that many "modern" people worldwide seem to have trouble with learning and perfecting a prescribed method. You are right that I am actually advancing an alternative "prescribed method" rather than eliminating "prescribed mothods" altogether. Please define "Self Enquiry."
Thanks,
Jim
| |
| | |
| Kaos - 2007-07-25 2:49 PM
Truth, cannot be arrogant, nor prejudiced.
Namaste Kaos,
I agree that truth cannot be arrogant or prejudiced, but words on paper or in people's heads often are.
Regards,
Jim | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-25 12:28 PM
I think that you are talking religion and I am talking philosophy. (Yes you are talking philosophy, but within the context of your religion.)
Jim, you are doing exactly the same thing as what you accuse Neel of.
You accuse Neel of talking philosophy within the context of religion.
Yet, you yourself is talking philosophy within a yoga forum.
Yoga, by the way, is the union of body, mind and spirit.
In other words, I hope you proof-read your posts before you hit the send button.
Kaos
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-25 7:40 PM
I agree that truth cannot be arrogant or prejudiced, but words on paper or in people's heads often are.
Jim
How do you know???
To use your very own words, -- "Accepting that you don't know is the first step to any serious inquiry."
Like I said, please re-read your posts, before hitting the send button.
| |
| | |
| Discussion 5
==========
Jim-When someone is asking for technical advice (ie how do I become more flexible or whatever) of course you must assess their current flexibility and look for what is blocking their natural flexibility potential before you can suggest a course of action. That is not judging that person but rather responding to their request with an educated answer. Everything is still changing with time. but your response to that individual is how (in your opinion, whether experienced or not) to facilitate a change in direction, in the continuum of change that is already taking place. I am hoping that neither your suggestions nor that person's body will be static.
Neel - Question1 for Jim: Dear Jim: When such a person comes to you for flexibility advice, assuming this situation existed, will you tell that person that I am giving you certain advice in the sense of checking what is blocking your flexibility, etc. and giving you advice to change in the direction of already changing universe? Will you also tell him that your advice itself is also undergoing such a change and if he/she comes to you again, you shall be giving him PROBABLY a changed advice?
Question 2 for Jim - Your method of checking what is blocking the flexibility. Will that be based on your or someone else's past experiences or only current awareness?
Jim-The above situation is probably not a representative sample of Westerners, although I agree that many "modern" people worldwide seem to have trouble with learning and perfecting a prescribed method. You are right that I am actually advancing an alternative "prescribed method" rather than eliminating "prescribed mothods" altogether. Please define "Self Enquiry."
Neel - Q1: How do you know 'modern people' have this trouble?
Q2: Is your statement using word 'modern people' in pllace of my word 'western people' a judgement similar to mine or it is a benign statement?
Q3o you beleve in Statistics? If yes, do you think that if I had 4000 western students and more than half of them are having a particular situation, I should make that statement? And, if I find that much less than 5 percent non Westerners only are having that situation, I can compare western verses non western or not?
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-07-25 10:42 PM
Discussion 5
==========
Jim-When someone is asking for technical advice (ie how do I become more flexible or whatever ) of course you must assess their current flexibility and look for what is blocking their natural flexibility potential before you can suggest a course of action. That is not judging that person but rather responding to their request with an educated answer. Everything is still changing with time. but your response to that individual is how (in your opinion, whether experienced or not ) to facilitate a change in direction, in the continuum of change that is already taking place. I am hoping that neither your suggestions nor that person's body will be static.
Neel - Question1 for Jim: Dear Jim: When such a person comes to you for flexibility advice, assuming this situation existed, will you tell that person that I am giving you certain advice in the sense of checking what is blocking your flexibility, etc. and giving you advice to change in the direction of already changing universe? Will you also tell him that your advice itself is also undergoing such a change and if he/she comes to you again, you shall be giving him PROBABLY a changed advice?
Answer 1 for Neel- Whether you tell this person all this or just answer their question would be your best judgement at that time and place. I sincerely hope that your advice will change over time as otherwise there would be no reason for that individual to come back to see you. (Since they will have changed when they see you next, your advice also needs to change. )
Question 2 for Jim - Your method of checking what is blocking the flexibility. Will that be based on your or someone else's past experiences or only current awareness?
Answer 2 for Neel - My method will be based on my current awareness. My current awareness includes my interpretations of my past experiences as well as what I have heard and read, and even my genetic makeup. It could also be based on insight that is a sudden understanding. (These come to people from time to time. )
Jim-The above situation is probably not a representative sample of Westerners, although I agree that many "modern" people worldwide seem to have trouble with learning and perfecting a prescribed method. You are right that I am actually advancing an alternative "prescribed method" rather than eliminating "prescribed mothods" altogether. Please define "Self Enquiry."
Neel - Q1: How do you know 'modern people' have this trouble?
A1:I did not say "modern People", I said many "modern people". The difference is that I have noticed this trend in more than a few people but am not applying this to anyone else.
Q2: Is your statement using word 'modern people' in pllace of my word 'western people' a judgement similar to mine or it is a benign statement?
A2: See A1.
Q3 o you beleve in Statistics? If yes, do you think that if I had 4000 western students and more than half of them are having a particular situation, I should make that statement? And, if I find that much less than 5 percent non Westerners only are having that situation, I can compare western verses non western or not?
A3: I believe that Statistics can be a useful tool. It is also often used to distort rather than prove. You don't have a representative sampling, so the result is not statistically valid. In your experience this is true, but your experience cannot be applied to the world at large.
Discussion 6
=========
Questions for Neel:
1. Please define Self Enquiry.
2. Without self knowledge, how do you really know anything? | |
| | |
| Discussion 6
=========
Jim - Questions for Neel: 1. Please define Self Enquiry. 2. Without self knowledge, how do you really know anything?
Neel - A1: Self Enquiry word has been used by others before my response to them or to you. Now, before I answer that question, I wish to know Q1: How do you define 'Self'? A2: See my Q1 and then we shall talk about Self Knowledge. | |
| | |
| Discussion 6 Continued.... Thanks jimb. Sorry, I forgot the other part.
Jim - Answer 1 for Neel- Whether you tell this person all this or just answer their question would be your best judgement at that time and place. I sincerely hope that your advice will change over time as otherwise there would be no reason for that individual to come back to see you. (Since they will have changed when they see you next, your advice also needs to change.)
Neel - After this answer, I close this particular part of discussion, from my side.
Jim - Answer 2 for Neel - My method will be based on my current awareness. My current awareness includes my interpretations of my past experiences as well as what I have heard and read, and even my genetic makeup. It could also be based on insight that is a sudden understanding. (These come to people from time to time.)
Neel - My current awareness and interpretations from the past make me close this part of the discussion as well.
Jim - A1:I did not say "modern People", I said many "modern people". The difference is that I have noticed this trend in more than a few people but am not applying this to anyone else.
A2: See A1.
Neel - I close this part as well from my side.
Jim - A3: I believe that Statistics can be a useful tool. It is also often used to distort rather than prove. You don't have a representative sampling, so the result is not statistically valid. In your experience this is true, but your experience cannot be applied to the world at large.
Neel - I do not accept this, I feel my world is large enough to apply my statement to the world at large. But, if you know otherwise, you can prove it. Otherwise, I close this topic. | |
| | |
|
Jim - A3: I believe that Statistics can be a useful tool. It is also often used to distort rather than prove. You don't have a representative sampling, so the result is not statistically valid. In your experience this is true, but your experience cannot be applied to the world at large.
Neel - I do not accept this, I feel my world is large enough to apply my statement to the world at large. But, if you know otherwise, you can prove it. Otherwise, I close this topic.
Jim-This is not a representative sampling because you are only looking at a group comprised of yoga students who have chosen to be associated with you and not a random sampling of people in general. This is a sub-group and therefore not representative of people in general and possibly not even of yoga students in general as certain types of yoga students will be attracted to you or your teaching and some not. Those who are not will therefore not be part of that sub-group. I know that this is quibbling over details, but you asked so I am replying. | |
| | |
| Kaos,
I am not accusing Neel of talking philosophy in the context of religion. I am merely pointing out that he is coming at our discussion from a different perspective than I. I meant no value judgement nor accusation. Yes, Neel and I are both discussing philosophy in the religion and philosophy section of a yoga forum. I agree that Yoga is the union of body, mind and spirit. What is wrong with entertaining various points of view about how that union can be achieved?
I don't understand why you are taking a combative position here.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Discussion 6
=========
Jim - Questions for Neel: 1. Please define Self Enquiry. 2. Without self knowledge, how do you really know anything?
Neel - A1: Self Enquiry word has been used by others before my response to them or to you. Now, before I answer that question, I wish to know Q1: How do you define 'Self'? A2: See my Q1 and then we shall talk about Self Knowledge.
-----
Jim- I define it as both self and Self, with self being the personal self (Jim or Neel) and Self being the greater Self (God or Brahman or whatever). Let me give an example: self is like a cell in the body and Self is like the entire body. Neither exist without the other. You cannot have the many without the One and you cannot have the One without the many. I see the many and the One as two different ways of looking at the same thing, not as two seperate entities.
Edited by jimg 2007-07-27 12:43 PM
| |
| | |
| Discussion 7
============
Neel - A1: Self Enquiry word has been used by others before my response to them or to you. Now, before I answer that question, I wish to know Q1: How do you define 'Self'? A2: See my Q1 and then we shall talk about Self Knowledge.
-----
Jim- I define it as both self and Self, with self being the personal self (Jim or Neel) and Self being the greater Self (God or Brahman or whatever). Let me give an example: self is like a cell in the body and Self is like the entire body. Neither exist without the other. You cannot have the many without the One and you cannot have the One without the many. I see the many and the One as two different ways of looking at the same thing, not as two seperate entities.
Neel - That is FANTASTIC! Now: A1: I define Self Enquiry also in two ways: a) ONE - What currently is called Self Enquiry in many circles. For this, you can view youtube, and other net media. In this concept, they are in tune with awareness concept with the changing world. b) SECOND - Trying to realized the SELF which is the brahman. In this regard, they first realize the individual Self as you wrote above called atmaa, and then the Universal atmaa, the Brahman.
In the terminology of Vedas: aadau atmaa tat param brahma... First realization of individual self occurs, and then the universal self.
A2: Self Knowledge. Is merely another way to express A1. In A1, one is taling about an activity called enquiry/search/practice/saadhana/etc. In A2, we are talking about the noun result aspect of it. | |
| | |
| I think that we are on ther same page here. (American slang for in agreement.) | |
| | |
| Hurray! | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-07-24 1:22 PM
These are very arrogant statements! They are based on prejudices not facts.
jimg - 2007-07-27 12:26 PM
Kaos,
I am not accusing Neel of talking philosophy in the context of religion... I meant no value judgement nor accusation.
Namaste Jimg,
You were the one who reacted by interpreting Neels posts as "arrogant" and "based on prejudice", earlier in the thread.
Please, no back tracking now.
Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now as you seem to have learned quite a lot. That is always good. I sincerely congratulate you for a job well done.
Kaos
| |
| |
|
any atheists here?