|
|
| Hi,
For hundreds of years (or even thousands?) humans are trying to solve the mystery of God. Some people say that it is only an idea (such as Love, Truth etc) but some people say that it is very real (a thinking higher Power). How can we rule out that all these concepts, opinions, experiences, enlightenment are nothing but just a higher state of human mind? If the enlightened people are really finding the Truth, why do they differ from each other? Like Sri Aurobindo contradicts Buddha about Nirvana etc.
Are there any instances where the communication with God is not just associated with a blissful state of mind?
| |
| | |
| What you are asking about is "Philosophy". And, what you are trying to get at is "Experience". All who are discussing and arguing and contradicting are doing so in relation to "Philosophy". And, that is correct to do so. Those who are experienced know that it is ONE and the SAME thing.
ekam sat sadvipraa bahudaa vadanti.... Upanishad.
Those who have experience and who choose to express it, again talk Philosophy in a way which tries to explain their experience. Experience can not be described exactly in words.
For example, a mother can not described exactly what mother is to a one who has not become mother yet. However, all mothers describe their idea of motherhood in a different way. However, the motherhood is exactly same as experienced by all mothers. (I am talking this without being a mother!!!!).
When it comes to Philosophy, it comes to logic, knowledge, langauge and if applicable experience.
When it comes experience, it ONLY comes to Experience. And, there is nothing to talk. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Very interesting question 
One keeps trying to apply logic to a subject that is beyond human comprehension and cannot be defined or captured in words. But hey, we're only human aren't we?
All that is said, written down or thought about what some call God, it is and it is not, by definition.
Consider the following poem:
The Blind Man and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant~(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation~Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, ~ At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant ~ Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp? ~ To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant ~ Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, ~ Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like ~ Is mighty plain," quoth her;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant ~ Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; ~ Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant ~ Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail ~ That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a rope!
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!
Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
-John Godfrey Saxe
Please do not misinterpret me: I would not dare to compare the Buddha with a Blind Man (oops, I'm afraid I just did) 
We should not take the words (especially not the transcripts) of an "enlightened person" too literally, as this is applying logic . We should rather let the words (and silences) "resonate" within ourselves to discover their raison d'etre.
God is. It is beyond our comprehension. It can only be experienced.
Just an opinion of (etc)  | |
| | |
| kulkarnn and tweeva,
Thank you very much for your wonderful responses.
Both the responses pretty much convey the same message. Different mothers describing the idea of motherhood differently and blind persons describing the elephant differently.
If what you said is true, can I say the following?
If a champion enlightened person like Buddha can be blind (no no even I do not dare to call him anything, but just for the sake of our discussion), then what is the surity that we are touching an elephant in the first place? May be it is a tree? In reality a blind person will know that it is an elephant only when a normal person tells it is. If enlightened persons are blind, then who can tell the Truth?
How do we know that all the experiences are not just some chemical changes in our brain? It can be God or it can be just creation of our own mind. Can be an elephant or a tree.
If down the road, let us say in thousand years, what if the humans explore the brain so much that they can actually transform a normal person into a Buddha or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the operation theater? Sounds weird, but my intention is not to disgrace these great souls.
| |
| | |
| I like to consider that reality is God, but one's perception corrupts the purity of it, so through practice we might consider more of what God is. | |
| | |
|
Words (thoughts, ideas, concepts, philosophy, religion etc) are to God
what a menu is to a meal.
Edited by jimg 2007-08-06 12:35 PM
| |
| | |
| I do not know where you are coming from. There is no doubt lot of imagination in your question. But, I shall try my best. See ===> below. naveen182 - 2007-08-06 11:49 AM
kulkarnn and tweeva,
Thank you very much for your wonderful responses.
Both the responses pretty much convey the same message. Different mothers describing the idea of motherhood differently and blind persons describing the elephant differently.
If what you said is true, can I say the following?
If a champion enlightened person like Buddha can be blind (no no even I do not dare to call him anything, but just for the sake of our discussion), then what is the surity that we are touching an elephant in the first place? May be it is a tree? In reality a blind person will know that it is an elephant only when a normal person tells it is. If enlightened persons are blind, then who can tell the Truth?
===> First, I wish to make correction. You should not use the word 'champion' which is generally used in a competitive spirit.
===> But, your question is very relevant. If the original person was blind, it will be a blind leading other blinds. But, even if the original person was Enlightened, the others will not realize that until they themselves become realized. And, that is why 'whether the realization state really exists or not' is an element which can ONLY be resolved by one process, that is called Trust, Faith, Shraddha, Belief, Devotion, whatever you can term it. Without that one can not practice, and without practice one shall not experience, and unless one experiences, one shall not realize, and unless one realizes, one does not know the original person was Realized or not.
How do we know that all the experiences are not just some chemical changes in our brain? It can be God or it can be just creation of our own mind. Can be an elephant or a tree.
===> This statement mundane. Because, that assumes Chemical Process describes or defines everything. And, it is already known that knowledge of chemical processes have not solved the problems.
If down the road, let us say in thousand years, what if the humans explore the brain so much that they can actually transform a normal person into a Buddha or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the operation theater? Sounds weird, but my intention is not to disgrace these great souls.
===> Do not worry about disgracing them. They are so great that they can never be disgraced. Your statement here is an assumption about possibility of exploration of human brian. And, that exploration so far has failed to transform the person from evil to oridinary or ordinary to extra ordinary. But, actually in most cases it has gone in the opposite direction.
| |
| | |
| I always find it interesting that when faced with the mystery of God, the general instinct of the East is to bow down and worship, while in the West we have this need to attempt to deconstruct, analyse, measure and attempt to solve the mystery without realising that it can't be solved.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| The East was already analyzing, measuring and attempting to solve the mystery of God when the West was still bowing down and worshiping trees. There is no Eastern or Western instinct. There is only human instinct, and that is common to us all, both in ancient times and right now. People have always approched the mystery of God from different perspectives. If this were not true, then why would the the Bhagavad Gita mention both Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga? | |
| | |
| Hi Jim,
While the Gita does mention both Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga, I'm not sure that either discpline involves 'analyzing, measuring and attempting to solve the mystery of God'.
Bhakti Yoga involves devotion to God, while Jnana Yoga teaches us to differentiate between what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (Maya).
So a more appropriate description of Jnana Yoga is to determine what ISN"T God.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| Dear jimg:
What I notice or feel is:
What Jonnie wrote about east verses west is: what he or we are observing in the present times. That is obvious from the questionaire in the original post. You shall notice by analysing this very bulletin board which has thousands of posts by this time, that Easterners are not getting that type of questions as much as Westerners.
What you are saying is related to past time. But, even then, there is a difference in Bowing down to trees and solving the mystery of God. I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.
Now, what you quoted using Shrimad Bhagavadgita is not applicable here, exactly. See this:
- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.
- These two paths are not inventive in a way. The verse which opens this path in Shrimad BG states: puraa proktaa mayaanagha... jnaanayogena sankhyaanaam and karmayogena yoginaam. In SBG, yoga is the science of practice where Bhakti is one of them. Jnana is the culmination of mental state which results from such practice and then the nature of the practice becomes discriminative as described by Jonnie. Above all, puraa proktaa mayaanagha... means I myself (Shree Krisna, the God, or incarnation) already stated firmly (not in innovative way or finding way) two paths dependingon the tendencies of the Spiritual Seeker. Thus, they are not attempts to find mystery of God, but already stated firm paths which one has trade depending on their tendency, NOT choice. A person who is not ready for Jnanayoga shall not be able to succeed in that path. And, that is what is happening with a) formless worships, b) self enquiry c) living in the presence without having to do any practice, etc.
I do not mean to offend, but am only stating my view.
Peace | |
| | |
| Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 2:29 PM
I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.
- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.
Hi Neel,
Isn't the "mystery of God" the same as 'Self Realization' as you say? Isn't the goal of Bhagavadgita "Self Realization"? That is how I understand it from the various English translations but they may be misleading, as I understand that translations are also interpretations.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Jim
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-08-08 11:53 PM
Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim
Hi Jim,
Then we are in agreement then.
Though I would add that practical Advaita and theoretical Advaita are very different disciplines.
In theoretical Advaita, the Self is the only reality, there is no path and we are all already awakened.
Though in practical Advaita the student knows that there is a long way to go before the truth of these statements can become our living truth.
There is no Path, but only for those who have Completed it.
Jonathon
Edited by jonnie 2007-08-07 11:28 PM
| |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-08-07 11:27 PM
[
There is no Path, but only for those who have Completed it.
Jonathon
Excellent!!! | |
| | |
| Thankyou.
Self Realisation is the reason I practise Yoga, though I still have a long way to go.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| Dear Jim: Actually, this statement is NOT hundred percent true. As I wrote above, there is something called Experience of Truth/God/ETC. And, there is something called Philosophy. Please see my initial responses. What I said to naveen was: In the experience there is no difference. Only in Philosophy, there is always a difference.
Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..
jimg - 2007-08-07 3:53 PM
Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Hi Jim: In this post, you have enacted a small portion of my previous response. Please read the entire response and its context. And, then relate it to the original post. Also, add this line to the previous response: Shrimad Bhagavadgita is a Philosophical Text (NOT religious, it is used as religious by many at later times) which summarizes the Philosophy of Upanishads, not of any other East and West and similarities, etc. And, in Bhgagavadgita all paths are divided into Yoga (also called as Karmayoga) and Jnana. In SBG, yoga does not mean what we call as Yoga on Yoga.com or even in Hathayogapradipika, or anywhere else. It is a combination of all Spiritual Practices. And, this practice is also called Yajna. And this practice can be any combination of Karma, Bhakti, Raja (Mediatation), Pooja, ETC. And, Jnana in SBG does not mean Jnanayoga as defined now a days as path of discrimination. It means the path which results automatically after Yoga is practiced, not our Yoga, but the one in SBG>
SBG is a very fluid text and it is extremely easy to read and sing. But, it is extremely difficult to comprehend as the meaning of words are to be taken properly in context and they have to be carried throughout the study. On the other hand, Patanjali Yoga Sutras is not a very easy text to read or sing, but the meanings are rather easy once you know them, I mean relative to SBG.
Let me repeat: Shrimad Bhagavadgita is much more comprehensive and fluid text, but it is more difficult. Whereas, Shree Patanjala Yogadarashan is relatively easier to comprehend, but is limited only to certain Yogic practices and philosophies.
What Jim is probably talking about is Spirituality which can be practiced by anybody and anywhere. And, of course the Self Realization is same at any place or with any person. But, that is not Philosophy. And, what Jonnie wrote about East and West is true in terms of Philosoophy. And, philosophical idealogy does not always create fanaticism or wars. And, original question is pertaining to philosophies. ETC. Philosophy tries to explain God. Explaining God is different from realizing it.
jimg - 2007-08-07 6:07 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 2:29 PM
I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.
- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.
Hi Neel,
Isn't the "mystery of God" the same as 'Self Realization' as you say? Isn't the goal of Bhagavadgita "Self Realization"? That is how I understand it from the various English translations but they may be misleading, as I understand that translations are also interpretations.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Jim
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 11:57 PM
Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..
Neel,
Please let me clarify as I probably wasn't clear. I am not saying that this or that ideology or culture is the reason for war. What I am saying is that the identification with a particular culture or ideology, the seeing the culture or ideology as MY culture or MY ideology is what brings me and the others who are the same together (the tribe), but inherent in that "togetherness" (that US) is the animosity towards everything that is not of MY/OUR culture and everyone that does not agree to MY/OUR ideology. This "instinct" is a result of our tribal past. As long as you have MY/OUR beliefs, MY/OUR religion, MY/OUR ideology, MY/OUR culture etc, you have ME/US and THEM. This Weltanschauung (view of the world, way of seeing, philosophical basis), this concept of ME/US and THEM is the basis, the cause and the necessary ingredient for violence, war and genocide. "True philosophical debate" is in my mind not about winning someone else over to my point of view, but rather discussing various points of view so that everyone ends up richer. It is a win/win not a win/lose situation; otherwise it is verbal war and everyone loses. Please don't forget that Hindus and Muslims are killing each other in Kashmir and Hindus and Buddhists are killing each other in Sri Lanka. What was Asoka doing when he converted to Buddhism? We are all people and we are not better or worse than anyone else. It is the "we are better than those others" view that leads to war. I am not defending the "West's" history of war and violence (as it is appalling), just pointing out that war and violence are a global reality and that the seed of this reality is the concept of ME and US as apposed to THEM.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Hi Kulkarnn,
I apologize. My ignorance and on top of that my inability to communicate properly (usually it is different than what I wanted to say  ) is complicating my points. But I thank you very much for your answers.
Ok, I will try to present my point again. Please bear with my inappropriate usage of words.
We have two things. One is our destination and the second one is our path to achieve that destination.
This destination can be called anything. Self-realization, God realization, Nirvana, Enlightenment etc. I really do not know the specific differences between these words, but I think it does not really matter for our discussion. Basically it is the wonderful state that great people like Buddha, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana maharshi had achieved.
The path can also be called anything. Self inquiry, meditation, yoga, different religions etc.
It is known to us that by following these different paths, it is possible to reach the wonderful destination we discussed above.
It is good so far. Now let us forget about the destination and the path for a while. If we look at the universe with the billions of stars and the forces that keep them in order, and also this wonder called human body and mind, we know that there is a force behind all the creation. Spritual people call it God, and materialists call it just matter and energy (Science believes that all the fundamental forces/energies, gravitational, electro-magnetic,and strong and weak nuclear forces are in fact only one force at higher energy levels). So, whether it is called God, or just a higher energy, everybody agrees that these is some force behind the creation.
Now we again have two things. One is the destination that is achieved by following the spiritual or religious path, second one is the force that created this universe and life.
My question is how these two things are treated as same. If we need to equate two things, we need to compare the properties of them, and then come to a conclusion. But when we discuss about the destination, it is always said that it cannot be described, it cannot be expressed in words. When we do not know the complete nature of the destination, how are we able to conclude that it is the God? When I was talking about brian chemical reactions
in my earlier post, what I meant was that the wonerful state that was achieved following the spiritual path could only be happening because of many years of meditation practice and the changes it was causing in the brain. It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?
Don't know if I make any sense or not | |
| | |
| I see. I agree that ME and MINE and Superiority Complex can create violence and war. But, I do not know get what that has to do with context of original post. But, anyway, I accept that part. However, the killing between Muslims and Indians is NOT a correct example. Indians have NEVER killed Muslims out of My Ideology and My Superiority. What has happened is: They are defending themselves. You can clearly see this. I do not know what is the situation in Shree Lanka. But, I am sure that Buddhist will not kill anyone without needing to defend themselves.
Actually, Buddhist commited a mistake (in my personal opinon only) of not defending when Communist Chinese tried to eradicate them from Tibet.
However, killing by Romans, killing by Muslims over the world, that by British when the Sun was shining too high on them, etc. are not the examples of the same killing. In the Shrimad Bhagavadgita, which you quoted, Arjuna is about to kill his own kith and kin, for the justice as a necessary evil.
jimg - 2007-08-08 12:49 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 11:57 PM
Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..
Neel,
Please let me clarify as I probably wasn't clear. I am not saying that this or that ideology or culture is the reason for war. What I am saying is that the identification with a particular culture or ideology, the seeing the culture or ideology as MY culture or MY ideology is what brings me and the others who are the same together (the tribe), but inherent in that "togetherness" (that US) is the animosity towards everything that is not of MY/OUR culture and everyone that does not agree to MY/OUR ideology. This "instinct" is a result of our tribal past. As long as you have MY/OUR beliefs, MY/OUR religion, MY/OUR ideology, MY/OUR culture etc, you have ME/US and THEM. This Weltanschauung (view of the world, way of seeing, philosophical basis), this concept of ME/US and THEM is the basis, the cause and the necessary ingredient for violence, war and genocide. "True philosophical debate" is in my mind not about winning someone else over to my point of view, but rather discussing various points of view so that everyone ends up richer. It is a win/win not a win/lose situation; otherwise it is verbal war and everyone loses. Please don't forget that Hindus and Muslims are killing each other in Kashmir and Hindus and Buddhists are killing each other in Sri Lanka. What was Asoka doing when he converted to Buddhism? We are all people and we are not better or worse than anyone else. It is the "we are better than those others" view that leads to war. I am not defending the "West's" history of war and violence (as it is appalling), just pointing out that war and violence are a global reality and that the seed of this reality is the concept of ME and US as apposed to THEM.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Dear Naveen. Thanks for elaboration.
Now we again have two things. One is the destination that is achieved by following the spiritual or religious path, second one is the force that created this universe and life.
===> No, they are actually only one thing. It is the same force/creator/brahman/god which created universe and also energies, and matter, and which is realized by doing Spiritual Practice.
The way it is expressed or realized in Spirituality is: There is one force which is beyond description, which is the final goal, called Brahman. The same force has another side which is expressed called prakruti (special creation pra-special, kruti - creation). And, then Prakruti is the first manifestation which later manifests into mind, intellect, and gross mater and energies.
My question is how these two things are treated as same.
The first thing is formless and when it manifests it becomes a form.
If we need to equate two things, we need to compare the properties of them, and then come to a conclusion. But when we discuss about the destination, it is always said that it cannot be described, it cannot be expressed in words. When we do not know the complete nature of the destination, how are we able to conclude that it is the God?
===> Your question is valid, and that I answered in the first response. This is because: Those who previously realized told us so and we have to believe in it. When, we follow the process, we get their.
When I was talking about brian chemical reactions in my earlier post, what I meant was that the wonerful state that was achieved following the spiritual path could only be happening because of many years of meditation practice and the changes it was causing in the brain. It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?
===> This is because, mind is beyond the brain. The brain can not exist without the mind. But, a mind can exist without a brain. For example, a incompletely satisfied mind without a body is called Ghost. And, completely satisfied mind in the body is called Jivanmukta (liberated while living). And, one's mind can be put into another person's body, 'chittasya parashariraaveshaH' .. Patanjali Chapter 3. And, your former destination, that is Brahman is beyond the Mind. That is why it can not be described. And, the one who has reached there does not have to be reborn. A liberated soul.
Don't know if I make any sense or not | |
| | |
| Hi Naveen,
What you say makes a lot of sense to me and I think that you are asking important questions, possibly the most fundamental question of all. You asked: "It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?" My answer to this question is: either you need faith in the answer or "path" of another, or you need to find out for yourself. Either way, that link (if it exists) must be experienced as it has to be (by definition) beyond words, ideas, philosophies, religions etc. If that experience is beyond the ability of words to communicate, you really cannot tell whether it is God or not as you can only make this distinction with words. Since all concepts of "enlightenment" or "God" are words, and therefore projections of the unelightened mind, short of experiencing the "real thing", you really don't know whether it exists or not. How do you know that it is the "real thing" that you experienced? You don't. You can believe anything that you want, and if you believe strongly enough, you can convince yourself of anything. Since verbal criteria cannot explain or communicate the non-verbal, I think that there is no final answer to your question. There are, however, a wide array of experiences and insights possible as a result of asking it.
Regards,
Jim | |
| | |
| The ugly part of reality is still reality
you don't have to accept it
but what is, is
| |
| | |
| SCThornley:" The ugly part of reality is still reality
you don't have to accept it
but what is, is"
Absolutely, but if you see the cause of that ugliness in yourself through self awareness, you will understand it and it will no longer influence your actions. If on the other hand you see the ugliness (in yourself or others), decide that it is wrong and therefore suppress it in yourself, it is still there and is still influencing your actions but you no longer see it as it is suppressed. | |
| | |
| Hey jimg: Can you please give an example of this. It is going slightly tangent to me. I have an example in a material way. For example, I hope you agree that if you see feces (correct spelling? excreata of a human being or animal) on a road which is smelling bad. Now, that is dirty or ugly. Do you mean to say the cause of it is in me? And, I should not suppress something or what.
In Yoga Philosophy, when something is not good, then the student is supposed to develop an attitude of disconnection (upekshaa) towards it, if the student is following a path of meditation. If that not good thing starts bothering the student even after upeksha, then the student is going to destroy that thing if ncessary, as per the student's background. For example, in the Shrimad Bhagavadgita quoted by you, the path which Arjun is supposed to take is: to destroy the evil. Whereas, evil can not do anything to Shree Krishna, so he does not have to fight. But, even then he participates to set an example to others. The fight in Geeta is different from the wars which are generally fought in the world.
jimg - 2007-08-10 5:14 PM
SCThornley:" The ugly part of reality is still reality
you don't have to accept it
but what is, is"
Absolutely, but if you see the cause of that ugliness in yourself through self awareness, you will understand it and it will no longer influence your actions. If on the other hand you see the ugliness (in yourself or others), decide that it is wrong and therefore suppress it in yourself, it is still there and is still influencing your actions but you no longer see it as it is suppressed. | |
| | |
| I am talking about internal things like greed or violence etc, not external things like feces (even though it starts out as internal). Being aware of greed (for example), understanding it, and therefore releasing attachment to it, as opposed to seeing greed, deeming it bad or ugly and suppressing it and therefore keeping the attachment but blocking the awareness. | |
| | |
| Oh I see. Thanks for clarification. So, let me now go into internal thing expample. Suppose you are working for a boss who is greedy and to make his salary higher, he is slogging you (in my respected BBB's words ' your a$$'!) a lot. Now, you see greed in his eyes. What do you think one should with the boss.
jimg - 2007-08-11 12:11 AM
I am talking about internal things like greed or violence etc, not external things like feces (even though it starts out as internal). Being aware of greed (for example), understanding it, and therefore releasing attachment to it, as opposed to seeing greed, deeming it bad or ugly and suppressing it and therefore keeping the attachment but blocking the awareness. | |
| | |
| As I was talking about your greed or my greed (internal) and not the greed of another person (external), I cannot give any advice about what to do without understanding the relationship. I need to understand my greed (or whatever) and release attachment to it. Through better understanding my greed, I also better understand greed in general. I still only have control over myself and not others. Although I believe that if you set a good example others will follow, this isn't always true. | |
| | |
| Dear jimg: I do not know whether I am getting your point. Or, whether you are getting my question. If you are saying that one should work on themselves and that is the only control they have, and they can not change others much, then I am with you. But, if you are saying that there is no greed in others and there is nothing to do there, I disagree. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-08-11 11:24 PM
Dear jimg: I do not know whether I am getting your point. Or, whether you are getting my question. If you are saying that one should work on themselves and that is the only control they have, and they can not change others much, then I am with you. But, if you are saying that there is no greed in others and there is nothing to do there, I disagree.
Neel,
I am saying that we can only control ourselves. I am reluctant to say anything about how best to deal with greed in others. It is of course there. The only answer I can give is to set a good example and if appropriate, attempt to help their awareness so that they can understand their greed as I can only understand mine.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Thanks for clarification. Gee. Brother SCT wrote one line and then you a quick statement. I could not derive the following from that.
jimg - 2007-08-12 2:28 AM
kulkarnn - 2007-08-11 11:24 PM
Dear jimg: I do not know whether I am getting your point. Or, whether you are getting my question. If you are saying that one should work on themselves and that is the only control they have, and they can not change others much, then I am with you. But, if you are saying that there is no greed in others and there is nothing to do there, I disagree.
Neel,
I am saying that we can only control ourselves. I am reluctant to say anything about how best to deal with greed in others. It is of course there. The only answer I can give is to set a good example and if appropriate, attempt to help their awareness so that they can understand their greed as I can only understand mine.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-08-10 5:14 PM
SCThornley:" The ugly part of reality is still reality
you don't have to accept it
but what is, is"
Absolutely, but if you see the cause of that ugliness in yourself through self awareness, you will understand it and it will no longer influence your actions. If on the other hand you see the ugliness (in yourself or others), decide that it is wrong and therefore suppress it in yourself, it is still there and is still influencing your actions but you no longer see it as it is suppressed.
I'm part of reality, not reality itself
I'm not projecting
I'm merely saying that "for me", reality is God, all of reality, the totality, not just the parts that I like or even the parts that I can rationalize into something that I can make peace with, but all of it.
| |
| | |
| SCThornley - 2007-08-13 5:48 AM
I'm part of reality, not reality itself
I'm not projecting
Actually, you are reality itself.
Ultimately, there is only God and nothing but God (whatever we choose to call it) and everything else is an illusion.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| I am actually lost as far as the last 5 or six postings are concerned. But, I am enjoying anyway. | |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-08-13 10:03 AM
SCThornley - 2007-08-13 5:48 AM
I'm part of reality, not reality itself
I'm not projecting
Actually, you are reality itself.
Ultimately, there is only God and nothing but God (whatever we choose to call it ) and everything else is an illusion.
Jonathon
thank you, that's got me right where I belong | |
| | |
| Aren't we both part of reality (self) and reality itself (Self) at the same time?
OR
Aren't we both individual consciousness and cosmic consciousness at the same time?
AND
If the goal of Yoga is the Union of the individual consciousness with the cosmic consciousness, then they must both exist.
Edited by jimg 2007-08-13 1:35 PM
| |
| | |
| Perfect timing.
This 'thought of the day' from Swami Sivananda, just arrived in my inbox:
The human soul, being in fact a part and parcel of the Infinite Existence, is in its essential nature identical with it. Being set awhirling in this cycle of the world process, veiled from the knowledge of its essential Divinity and its Consciousness severely limited by the encasing sheaths of Matter, the Jiva ever seeks to put an end to this separation, limitation and the sense of incompleteness that it feels. Through successive incarnations, its life constitutes a constant reaching forth towards its Primal abode of Infinite, Immortal Blissful Existence and until that state is attained, each centre of individualised ego-consciousness will keep up this restless quest on the upward path of evolution. Through every moment humanity as a whole is inevitably and irresistibly being drawn up towards that Ideal State of Perfect Existence.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| When the individual existence is realized as Body, then person is still in the gross world. When, it is realized as Mind, then a person is in a evolved status. (This person is called : Ego, Ahankaara). When the person intially realizes the Individual Consciousness which is beyond the Body and Mind, that is the Soul, then the person is still different from the Cosmic Consciousness and has attained Samadhi State. When the individual consciousness completely merges into the Cosmic One, then the part becomes the whole, the Yogi becomes the saint, and the Union takes place. This is called Liberation.
jimg - 2007-08-13 1:20 PM
Aren't we both part of reality (self) and reality itself (Self) at the same time?
OR
Aren't we both individual consciousness and cosmic consciousness at the same time?
AND
If the goal of Yoga is the Union of the individual consciousness with the cosmic consciousness, then they must both exist.
| |
| | |
| >>If the goal of Yoga is the Union of the individual consciousness with the cosmic consciousness, then they must both exist.
It may be better to come at this via Buddhist thought - if all is truly one-ness, then there is no need for union. What's needed instead is recognition of the true nature of self, rather thinking in terms of barriers of consciousness or planes of existence that stand in our way as we try to reach enlightenment. Barriers and planes don't matter on an ultimate basis, they're just you as Self, so to focus on them takes the meditator away from directly perceiving what he already is. The 'jewel in the hem of the monk's coat' is something we all possess. We build prisons of teachings, instead of just pointing our attention at our true nature and acknowledging what we are - and can never move away from being.
I tend to think of Self in the body of the self as being something that's lost its memory. My job is to remind it of what it really is, so that it's no longer deluded by samsaric reality, nor fixated upon 'doing'.
M
Edited by Mellish 2007-09-26 12:23 PM
| |
| | |
| What you described is 'another door of the same prison of Teaching called Buddhism'. But, do not worry, there can not be doors without prison or prison without doors!!!
Mellish - 2007-09-26 12:20 PM
>>If the goal of Yoga is the Union of the individual consciousness with the cosmic consciousness, then they must both exist.
It may be better to come at this via Buddhist thought - if all is truly one-ness, then there is no need for union. What's needed instead is recognition of the true nature of self, rather thinking in terms of barriers of consciousness or planes of existence that stand in our way as we try to reach enlightenment. Barriers and planes don't matter on an ultimate basis, they're just you as Self, so to focus on them takes the meditator away from directly perceiving what he already is. The 'jewel in the hem of the monk's coat' is something we all possess. We build prisons of teachings, instead of just pointing our attention at our true nature and acknowledging what we are - and can never move away from being.
I tend to think of Self in the body of the self as being something that's lost its memory. My job is to remind it of what it really is, so that it's no longer deluded by samsaric reality, nor fixated upon 'doing'.
M | |
| | |
| Ahhh, I see. You're the local thought police, against everything that isn't what you think is true. I guess what you think is true is solely hindu-based, hence your anger? You're not what I normally expect of your tradition I have to say. You seem fearful of Buddhism somehow, rather than accepting of other schools and beliefs, as others in Hinduism are. Mother frightened by a Tulku at some point? Bad experience with a smiling bald man?
I personally came here to learn and share where I can, not teach or convert. What I've said about mind and one-ness appears just as stronly in Hindu literature as it does Buddhist. We're so close on so many counts that there's only hair between us.
I'm not here to argue about who's right and wrong - we all are to the same degree. If we can share ideas and techniques then perhaps we can both grow. I thought that was a fairly safe assumption to make on such an enlightened forum?
We have a choice now to either have a stupid argument about how awful Buddhism is and how wonderful what you believe is, and why I really should try to help someone so advanced as you are - or just say hello, nice to meet you and walk away. Which seems the better choice?
M
Edited by Mellish 2007-09-26 4:14 PM
| |
| | |
| Hurray Darling Mellish!
I admire your conclusion!
Before I can say anything more on this, I request you to read your earlier post line by line, then read your above response line by line, compare them, and then read the topic of the Post, and let me know you have done so. This is NOT 'Englightened Bulletin Board'. It is a Discussion Board. And, unfortnately or fotunately, discussion is in a way a kind of arguement. But, if you do not wish to discuss, that is another matter.
I wish you peace.
Your Angry Friend. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2007-09-26 1:01 PM
What you described is 'another door of the same prison of Teaching called Buddhism'. But, do not worry, there can not be doors without prison or prison without doors!!!
Actually, NB, I would like for you to expound upon this statement further. You can e-mail me privately if you feel more comfortable that way. Thanks. | |
| | |
| Dear CB: Thanks for the opportunity. Because, many times my (correct!!!) English statements are misunderstood by the English people! What I mean is in response to the Mellish's post: Please the entire of it above, but it ends in:
We build prisons of teachings, instead of just pointing our attention at our true nature and acknowledging what we are - and can never move away from being.
I tend to think of Self in the body of the self as being something that's lost its memory. My job is to remind it of what it really is, so that it's no longer deluded by samsaric reality, nor fixated upon 'doing'.
Now, what I am saying is:
a) There is no question that above statements are extension of Buddhistic philosophy.
b) The above statements are also a kind of Teaching, just like other teachins such as Union explained earlier. And, if we are building prisons of Teachings, then these are all doors of that same prison.
c) and, lastly, and importantly what I am stating is: do not worry. All prisons require doors and all doors belong to some kind of prisons. That means all the above teachings are required and also prisons are required. Both are integral part of the path to Salvation.
d) And, there is NO need to state that: Instead of the path of Union, one should rather look at it from another angle. Whatever is good in any path should be taken. And, one can enter the prison from any door. And go out of the prison from any door, as well.
e) And, if one is interested in comparing the paths, one should be ready for hearing arguementation. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Quoting out of context:
kulkarnn - 2007-09-25 4:22 AM
That means all the above teachings are required and also prisons are required. Both are integral part of the path to Salvation.
Neel, could you please elaborate on this one?
Tw
Edited by tweeva 2007-09-27 6:58 AM
| |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-26 5:59 PM
Hurray Darling Mellish!
I admire your conclusion!
Before I can say anything more on this, I request you to read your earlier post line by line, then read your above response line by line, compare them, and then read the topic of the Post, and let me know you have done so. This is NOT 'Englightened Bulletin Board'. It is a Discussion Board. And, unfortnately or fotunately, discussion is in a way a kind of arguement. But, if you do not wish to discuss, that is another matter.
I wish you peace.
LOL! Still with the angry. Read your posts, read the OP. Still relevant, though a little to one side. Do you have a problem 'angry friend'? I make two posts that I thought were just being helpful and you leap on both as though I'd commited heinous crimes, when in fact,what I said is identical for both Hinduism and Buddhism?
However, if you really DO know what you're talking about you'll also understand that my message was expedient means, relevant to the level of question (ie, Mahamudra in Buddhism). If you'd like to go one stage higher into Dzogchen then of course we can't talk about mind/no mind, existence/non-existence. All is beyond restrictions and extremes and therefore any conceptualisation will certainly become a prison - IF you cling to it. However, Buddhism and Hinduism take pains to point out to their practitioners that all teaching up until the final level and actual direct exprience is always expedient means, and not the final story. If we were to talk in terms of the Ultimate view then we coul;dn't even have a conversation about it,because there would be nothing either of us could say. So we have to use relative terms, establish that we're all onthesame page, then move upwards. If you DO understand One-ness then it's not right not to allow anyone to speak in a way that those with lesser knowledge than you can understand. It's like pulling the ladder up behind yourself if you charge anyone who speaks in relative terms with being wrong or in a prison. You become destructive, not helpful.
It's really unfortunate. I assumed that between us all here we could share knowledge from our traditions in a way that would be helpful to both. But all you're concerned with is your ego and how little you want to be seen to be helped from your position of vast understanding. I'm sure you're a lovely, lovely person, but you might want to try and sort out your paranoia before accusing anyone of doing missionary work here.
M | |
| | |
| The term prison and door is not necessary in my explanation. It is taken due to the usage of the term Prison by Mellish. So, let us leave aside these two terms now. And, call these two terms by one term "Methodology". What I am saying is:
- Methodology evolves out of Context, Geography, Culture, as well as Philosophy. For example: Suppose one particular religion evolves out of a personality which helped the people out of oppression. The teachings of that religious Methodology shall have lot of elements related to the removal of oppression. That particular element may not be applicable to another place where the oppression does not exist.
- There are some universal truths. These may or may not be present in all the methodologies.
- There are some Universal B.S.s. And, these should not be present in any Methodology. For example, there should be NO methodology where an 18 year old young girl should marry 70 year old man.
- So, all methodologies are needed depeneding on the context and needs.
- However, to state: It may be better to come at this via Buddhist thought is WRONG.
tweeva - 2007-09-27 6:57 AM
Quoting out of context:
kulkarnn - 2007-09-25 4:22 AM
That means all the above teachings are required and also prisons are required. Both are integral part of the path to Salvation.
Neel, could you please elaborate on this one?
Tw | |
| | |
| Darling Mellish: Please see my above responses to CB and Tweeva. That is the final I have to say to you in this thread.
Mellish - 2007-09-27 7:58 AM
kulkarnn - 2007-09-26 5:59 PM
Hurray Darling Mellish!
I admire your conclusion! ETC.
I wish you peace.
LOL! Still with the angry. ETC.
M | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Thank you NB, that was a BEAUTIFUL explanation.
Mellish...you need to chill out. I can assure you that Neel is not angry. He's really like that little fat laughing Buddha guy...only NB is skinny,  | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-25 2:14 PM
The term prison and door is not necessary in my explanation. It is taken due to the usage of the term Prison by Mellish. So, let us leave aside these two terms now. And, call these two terms by one term "Methodology". What I am saying is:
- Methodology evolves out of Context, Geography, Culture, as well as Philosophy. For example: Suppose one particular religion evolves out of a personality which helped the people out of oppression. The teachings of that religious Methodology shall have lot of elements related to the removal of oppression. That particular element may not be applicable to another place where the oppression does not exist.
- There are some universal truths. These may or may not be present in all the methodologies.
- There are some Universal B.S.s. And, these should not be present in any Methodology. For example, there should be NO methodology where an 18 year old young girl should marry 70 year old man.
- So, all methodologies are needed depeneding on the context and needs.
- However, to state: It may be better to come at this via Buddhist thought is WRONG.
Ok. I can easily relate to the term Methodology
My attitude towards all Methodologies is that they are valuable as a "means to an end" (corresponding to your statement "So, all methodologies are needed depeneding on the context and needs.").
However many people become so passionate about the Methodology itself (often when those people excel in knowledge about the M.), that they forget the underlying message, the motive, purpose, "le raison d'etre" of the M. and refuse to let it go.
BTW: I personally prefer the analogy of a "labyrinth" over a "prison".
Tw | |
| | |
| I understand and also somewhat agree with what you are saying. As I see it:
- yes Methodologies are means to an End. And, after an End is achieved one may or may not cling to a methodology
- those who reach the End, do stay with Methodology to set an example to others who have not reached the End. This is because, there are more who think they do not need to do anything as End is Virtually There.
- those who really reach the End, never cling to their Methodology and undermine other's Methodology, unless of course the other Methodology is truely wrong.
- if any methodology tries to undermine another one, and that another one thinks that their methodology is correct, they should point out this mistake and state why their Methodology is correct.
- In a social context, Methodology (which as you said correctly, a means to an End in a Philosophical as well as practical way) and End merge. And, this is inevitable. That is because for those who have not yet established themselves in the End, they know that their ideals who are in the End have followed a certain Methodology and they believe that the same Methodology shall lead them to the End. This is called Classical Literature.
- For example, those who see BKS Iyengar doing perfect backbends (I am taking this example only because it is immediately understandable by anyone without knowing Philosophy. But, I actually do NOT mean to emphasize Asana exercise.) definitely believe that if they do the practice indicated by him or as done by him, they shall get the same backbend. Though, actually, there are various ways to get there. Now, if someone comes and tells them: BTW: Why to practice that way. Backbend is backbend. Just focus on back or some other way... Let us say a NONBKS Method. Then, they are going to ........you know what I mean.
- However, I completely agree with you that if someone clings to only one way of doing Backbends, they shall be ignorant of other ways. And, also if one clings only to backbends, they shall be stuck at that only and not go beyond. And, they shall not know what other ways are to do the backbends. ETC.
- But, lastly, if one reaches perfect Back Bends and also go beyond them, one may continue to practice them with their old methodology to set example to others. This is called Teaching.
Peace
tweeva - 2007-09-27 11:07 AM
Ok. I can easily relate to the term Methodology
My attitude towards all Methodologies is that they are valuable as a "means to an end" (corresponding to your statement "So, all methodologies are needed depeneding on the context and needs." ). However many people become so passionate about the Methodology itself (often when those people excel in knowledge about the M. ), that they forget the underlying message, the motive, purpose, "le raison d'etre" of the M. and refuse to let it go.
BTW: I personally prefer the analogy of a "labyrinth" over a "prison".
Tw | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Thank you for this wise reply, Neel.
Tw
| |
| |
|
What is God