|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 17 2008 : 4:14:23 PM
|
Carson,
quote:
but if you think that enlightenment has only one level, and that level is the level of egolessness, how can you think that SwamiG is enlightened?
I don't think the ego ever goes away, it's just not seen as the self. I like yogani's definition, and agree that this is all just a lot of talk. |
 |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2008 : 4:21:49 PM
|
Isn't the forum FOR talking? I do my practices every day, twice a day religiously, but I still like to talk about stuff. Like whether or not someone can truely be egoless. And if you can, can there still be personality? These are just questions, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, I am just searching for truth in words. Ineffective I know, but I have another 2 hours until my next set of practices
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2008 : 5:01:11 PM
|
CarsonZi said:
On the idea of testing of an enlightened one....Wouldn't being intimately connected with the Source of everything make it so an enlightened one would have access to ALL information? Meaning, wouldn't Self inquiry be enough? Would one really have to "study?"
Carson, I'm afraid such a person would still have to study if they want to do the things that require studying. If they venture into the territories that require study, and don't study, they'll perform incompetently, just like anyone else. That's the way it goes.
And it does happen. It happens all the time actually. It happens all the more because people are carrying these illusions about what enlightenment is.
I hope you understand I am not searching for anything, especially not a "perfect" guru. But is it not acceptable to strive for "perfect" enlightenment, or complete Self Realization, or however one might call it...is it not what we are all here practicing for...complete UNION?
Well, we can strive. But if we think we're finished (in a good way) then we're finished (in a bad way).
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Oct 20 2008 : 1:42:43 PM
|
Hi David,
Thank you for your input....Can I ask you how you know that...
"...such a person would still have to study if they want to do the things that require studying. If they venture into the territories that require study, and don't study, they'll perform incompetently, just like anyone else. That's the way it goes"
Have there actually been scientific studies on what an "enlightened human" knows and does not know? If so, WHO did they study? In my OPINION, it would seem that since the Source of everything would "know" everything, from physics, to energy, to math, to you name it, (it's the Source of it all) and that since the definition I think we came up with of an "enlightened being" is one who is in constant connection with the "source", then this person would have access to any and all information desired or required to pass a test. Whether this being would even agree to be tested is a whole 'nother topic, but I still can't see how you can KNOW 100% that what you are saying is the WHOLE Truth.
"...if we think we're finished (in a good way) then we're finished (in a bad way)"
This I agree with totally, but then again, are you trying to say that NOONE can be in constant connection with the Source???
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Oct 20 2008 : 5:48:44 PM
|
Hi Carson,
'In my OPINION, it would seem that since the Source of everything would "know" everything, from physics, to energy, to math, to you name it, (it's the Source of it all) and that since the definition I think we came up with of an "enlightened being" is one who is in constant connection with the "source", then this person would have access to any and all information desired or required to pass a test.'
You make a valid point I think.Unfortunately yoga has not improved my memory or else I would remember where the following info came from.There is a theory that we are all simply a collective consciousness and we tap into it which is why one can send distant healing etc.Recently I read that scientists are theorising that the memory is actually contained in this collective consciousness and not in the brain.When we recall a memory we tap into this consciousness, so in theory if one could tap into the same point as another then you could actually have access to their memories.To take this theory further one could access all the history of mankind.Some theory huh? Now before you say it's not possible consider that some can tune into others vibrations and glean information about that person from anywhere in the world and I have witnessed this.
L&L
Dave |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Oct 20 2008 : 7:37:32 PM
|
Hi Dave,
You are preaching to the choir brother....No arguments here, and I TOTALLY believe it's possible.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
jerrea
France
1 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 5:07:02 PM
|
My concern here is that this guru doesn't even appear to mention God.
As a guru are we meant to see her as God? Is enlightent and realization not about GOD realization? There appears to be no mention of this, as far as I am aware. This deeply concerns me. I too was part of this on-line ashram, but left because of these reasons.
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 8:07:51 PM
|
| I asked her before and she differentiated herself from God, and said God existed and that enlightenment is God realization. But who knows. You could email her and ask directly. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2008 : 5:30:28 PM
|
CarsonZi said:
"...such a person would still have to study if they want to do the things that require studying. If they venture into the territories that require study, and don't study, they'll perform incompetently, just like anyone else. That's the way it goes"
Have there actually been scientific studies on what an "enlightened human" knows and does not know? If so, WHO did they study? In my OPINION, it would seem that since the Source of....
I base my claims on observations of those who were claimed to be 'enlightened' -- and that observation is that they did not have the magical minds they are supposed to have. Krishnamurti pooh-poohed mantra yoga in general and TM in particular. What he needed was not "enlightenement", but rather an appropriate minimum education before he made his pronouncements.
There are lots of stories like this.
This I agree with totally, but then again, are you trying to say that NOONE can be in constant connection with the Source???
Language is vague here. What does constant connection with the Source mean? Is that really a well-formed notion, intellectually?
There is a set of beliefs that there is a process of 'enlightenment' which turns human beings into superheroes -- sorts of Gods if you will, with magical powers, all-seeing, all-knowing. I believe its a mistake, and a big one. Let me label this set of beliefs, the 'Siddha Tradition'.
In the end, I just don't believe it's reality. And I don't believe it serves us that well.
Yoga improves the mind-body, in ways known and maybe in ways unknown. It can be a great healer, a great purifier, a great pusher towards our 'potential'. But I don't see a shred of evidence that it has ever produced a 'Siddha' in the sense of the 'Siddha Tradition' I'm talking about. Or even anything really like one. I don't believe in Yogananda's 'Babaji', or that Yogananda's promotion of his 'Babaji', and everything that goes with that, was instructive or helpful to humanity. And in time, I believe this will become the prevailing understanding.
Other people will believe differently. That's OK. I won't argue without provocation. But I do have my reasons for believing as I do.
Why is it important to say such things as I say? Because, inflation is a bad thing as it pulls us out of our domain of competence. And it is so easy already to get 'inflated' as you progress on the Yoga path. If you have a set of beliefs that are enabling inflation, it might be time to get rid of them.
Keep it real, keep it humble. To put it sacro-mythically, enlightenment is about the 'glory of god', not the 'glory of getting enlightened'. It is very easy already for it to become the latter, often in ways people don't see.
|
|
|
|
knowingunknown
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2008 : 11:24:18 PM
|
Dear seekers,
Would you not agree that any talk about what a Guru, Sage or Enlightend Being is "supposed" to be like is nothing but mind's imaginations in the end? It is like discussing, imagining and conceptualizing what it is like to drink water, having never experienced it yourself. Empty banter in the end.
Your efforts would be better spent discovering the Truth as It IS, then any and all commentary about the action or nonactions of a Realized One would be beside The Point. No?
Empty banter is nothing other than flimsy concepts that have no reality.
Discover the Foundation and let Silence Speak.
Blessings. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2008 : 12:40:38 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I base my claims on observations of those who were claimed to be 'enlightened' -- and that observation is that they did not have the magical minds they are supposed to have.
I was reading Patangali's Yoga Sutra's today and I came across this passage.
Book 1, 25."In the Master is the perfect seed of Omniscience.
The Soul of the Master is in essence one with the Oversoul, and therefore partaker of the Oversoul's all-wisdom and all-power. All spiritual attainment rests on this, and is possible because the soul and the Oversoul are One."
Perhaps some of the guru's you are referring to were not enlightened?
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Nov 12 2008 03:21:35 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 06:08:25 AM
|
Hi Carson,
quote:
The Soul of the Master is in essence one with the Oversoul, and therefore partaker of the Oversoul's all-wisdom and all-power.
Enlightened masters do become omniscient. That means that, as Patanjali says, they become one with the oversoul, and can partake of the omniscience of the oversoul.
But the thing is, the oversoul only knows what actually exists, it doesn't know about all the things that we (continuously) dream up. So an enlightened master who is able to participate in the omniscience of the oversoul will not be able to tell you about all kinds of things that are not real.
As one master said: "Do not pray to God, he does not even know you exist".
Christi |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 10:45:05 AM
|
Hi Christi.
I was basically thinking tests like physics tests or stuff like that. I wasn't thinking imaginary mind stuff type of tests. I wasn't even thinking mind reading type of tests. Just pure factual based tests. I'd really like to see some testing like this done some day. It would go a long way to giving credibility to the whole "enlightened guru" thing.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 2:50:53 PM
|
Christi said:
Enlightened masters do become omniscient. That means that, as Patanjali says, they become one with the oversoul, and can partake of the omniscience of the oversoul.
Christi, they do not become omniscient. Omniscient means 'knows everything'. It doesn't mean 'becomes one with the oversoul'.
Sure, you can play semantic games, pursue slippery definitions, and you can pretend that 'knowing something very important', or 'has deep spiritual knowledge' has the same meaning as 'omniscient'. But that's deceptive. It hasn't. That's just leads to 'master' getting off the hook for NOT knowing everything, while he still gets the credit for knowing everything, and the worship and power that goes with that. If we mean he has 'deep spiritual knowledge', we should say that, not say 'he is omniscient'.
If the falsehood that 'master' is omniscient is propagated, then believers are manipulated by that falsehood itself. If you believe your teacher is omnipotent or omniscient, then I say you are manipulated by that delusion. I don't believe there are any exceptions now, or ever have been. And you will likely be manipulated by someone who was manipulated by his 'spiritual father' before him, kind of like child abuse passing down through the generations. It's not pretty, but I'm just the messenger here.
Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the unpleasant reality that gives him reason to give the message. It's time to clean the Yogic ship. Time to separate the Barnum and Bailey Yoga Magic Circus from Yoga practice.
CarsonZi,
yes, this is indeed what the scriptures say that Patanjali said. But I see it as religious hyperbole. The writers of those scriptures were prone to exaggeration. I don't believe yoga has made anyone omniscient. Nor do I believe that amaroli 'cures all diseases', another thing you'll find the scriptures saying.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 13 2008 2:54:22 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 3:18:39 PM
|
Hi David,
Just because you see it as "religious hyperbole" doesn't necessarily make it so. And just because I (and Patangali) think that a "Master" would have access to any and all True knowledge doesn't make it so either. But no offence, I kinda trust Patangali a bit more then you in this circumstance as his wisdom has proven to be considerably accurate on just about every account in regards to yoga practices. He seems pretty "on it" if you ask me. Not that you don't, just that ancient practical wisdom wins in my mind every time unless proven otherwise. Please don't take offence to this. It's just my opinion, take it as such.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Nov 13 2008 3:39:35 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 4:12:54 PM
|
CarsonZi said:
But no offence, I kinda trust Patangali a bit more then you in this circumstance as his wisdom has proven to be considerably accurate on just about every account in regards to yoga practices.
This is a scripture and we don't even know if Patanjali is a real person, or just a name that the scripture writer's wrote as the author, while the teachings there may have been gathered from several sources. But if Patanjali were a real person, I think he was probably a really smart one and if he were to come forward in a time machine from those times to now, he would learn a lot from these times, as smart people are inclined to do, as there is a big body of knowledge available now that was not available then.
And I believe, that with the appropriate reflection and discussion with me, he would take my side on this matter.
Until he shows up and logs on,  I would say he is taking no side on this question at all; the question of whether 'omniscience' is meant literally there or not.
I do agree with you, BTW, that Patanjali (whether a person or a group) had remarkable insight on Yoga practices. I would say he was a true genius in Yogic matters. But I don't think he was omniscient, in the literal sense of the word.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 14 2008 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2008 : 4:33:56 PM
|
I didn't say Patangali was omniscient, just that I trust his (or "their" if you prefer to think he was a group) "statements" more than yours because from personal experience I have found his statements on "yogic practices" to be dead on. I have had personal inclinations many times lead me to disagree with things you have said on the forum, so I choose to put more stock in his opinion over yours. This is why I said please don't take offence. And saying that Patangali's teachings can no more be authenticated then the teachings of Christ as represented by the Catholic church is a pretty absurd statement in my opinion. You and I both know that what Patangali says is true, can be and has been proven hundreds of thousands of times by hundreds of thousands of different practitioners all over the world. Why would you take exception to one passage in the whole Yoga Sutra's and run with everything else? Just cause it doesn't jive with what you WANT to believe? Maybe you need to let go of the attachment to what you think enlightenment is NOT.
Love,
Carson
P.S. To say that after having a conversation with YOU, Patangali would soon come to see the error of his ways is a pretty egoic statement to make. |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Nov 13 2008 6:13:35 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 10:41:31 AM
|
I regret saying that bit about Jesus and Catholicism, because it is easy to misunderstand. I removed it from above and here it is:
Carson, that is a little bit like saying that you trust Jesus not to have misled us through the Catholic Church, which is something I have heard in my time!
What I mean is this: from my point of view there is no reason to believe that Jesus was committed, at all, to what the Catholic Church had him represent. In a similar way, I don't have a reason to believe that Patanjali is committed to your belief here as opposed to mine. So to me, your saying that you'd trust Patanjali rather than trust me is like saying someone would trust Jesus that the Catholic Church is right about Jesus. You see what I mean? If you don't, never mind.
And for the rest of what you've said, well, what can I say? A messenger on matters like this should wear a bullet-proof vest.
But I will address one thing. You say I WANT to believe. Actually, that is not the case at all. I have very strong cognitive-motivational independence and I always have had. When I was a boy, I was perplexed that people would say that people would be punished for not believing in God, because to me, belief has never a matter of choice. To me it was like saying you'd get punished for developing a rash, or for not developing one. It made no sense.
But I learned over time that it is not this way for other people, though I often forget it. Some people can choose to believe, and some let their desires influence what they believe. Perhaps these people have no proper concept of those who have cognitive-emotional independence, just as I had no proper concept of cognitive-emotional dependence? Certainly, I see cognitive-emotional dependence being projected on me.
I don't WANT to believe that Santa doesn't exist, in fact it is quite the other way around. It was great while I believed it. I loved it. But I just can't believe it, no matter how much I might want to. Same with so many things religion promises. Same with believing that Yoga makes people omniscient -- if anything, I'd prefer if it were true. Same with believing that genes have a very little influence on us -- I'd prefer if this were true, and all children were born equal angels, but I know it's false.
So to settle things, I WANT to believe that you are right here and I am wrong, but I believe that it is not the case.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 14 2008 10:44:51 AM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 11:01:46 AM
|
Hi David,
I'm sorry I made you feel like you need a bullet proof vest, and I'm sorry you feel like you are a "messenger", but nothing you are saying is any news to me. To me this is all water under the bridge. I have come to a point where experience means more to me then words or mind stuff. This is why I put stock in Patangali's teachings. Because the teachings are backed up by personal experience for me. And to compare the Bible to the Yoga Sutra's again to me is absurd. There is nowhere even close to the controversy over the translations, or the secrecy, or the disagreements. Nobody (but you) seems to contest the translations of the Yoga Sutra's or who wrote them. A LOT of people have a lot of problems with the translations and interpretations of the Bible because of who, and why it was, translated as it was. You and I are both in this group I believe. So to compare their history and to say that because the Bible is so shrouded in metaphor and symbolism that the Yoga Sutra's must be the same is silly IMHO.
As for having very strong cognitive-motivational independence, this is again mind stuff....attachment you have to your ego. You WANT to think of yourself as having "very strong cognitive-motivational independence", but when all is said and done, you are me, and I am you, and we have the same "Oversoul". And all the beliefs we have attached ourselves to, are things that must be stripped away in order for us to realize our TRUE nature. You want to have very strong cognitive-motivational independence, and so you spend much time convincing yourself (and others) that you are like this. So to say "I WANT to believe that you are right here and I am wrong, but I believe that it is not the case" is not very true. You very much DO want to believe that you are right and I am wrong. But it's all just mind stuff and we will only ever know the TRUTH through personal experience. And MY personal experience tells me that Patangali's teachings are verifiable and not "religious hyperbole" as you put it. Your personal experience may tell you differently. But eventually one day, when both of us are advanced enough, I'm pretty sure we will come to some type of agreement. But for now, I think it's time to practice. Good luck.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Nov 14 2008 11:14:45 AM |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 11:37:24 AM
|
Perhaps the issue here is not omniscience at all. That can only belong to God. The way i see it there are two issues only.
a) the egoless, bodiless consciousness, state of self realisation
and
b) spiritual and psychic experiences. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 11:38:40 AM
|
Nobody (but you) seems to contest the translations of the Yoga Sutra's or who wrote them. A LOT of people have a lot of problems with the translations and interpretations of the Bible because of who, and why it was, translated as it was.
The problems are of meaning, and that is 'translation'. Was Patanjali speaking metaphorically, hyperbolically, and how does that translate or mistranslate into a more literal mind-set? I am certainly not alone in asking those questions.
As for having very strong cognitive-motivational independence, this is again mind stuff....attachment you have to your ego.
Actually Carson, it isn't. It's cognitive-emotional independence. It allows me to believe things I don't like being true -- and to reject beliefs I would like to be true. That's just a reality of the way my mind works. I'm not saying I have absolute cognitive-emotional independence, but I have very strong relative cognitive-emotional independence on these kinds of questions.
As for the phenomenon of 'shooting of the messenger', yes, I think that's happening.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 11:57:37 AM
|
Beliefs are beliefs any way you state it. They all gotta disappear in the end.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 2:23:39 PM
|
| Including your belief that they all gotta disappear in the end. Obviously. |
|
|
|
knowingunknown
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 2:59:46 PM
|
"Beliefs are beliefs any way you state it. They all gotta disappear in the end."
Yes! "You come into the world with closed fists and you leave with palms open." What can possibly be taken to the Point before even origin?
Well said. May it be a reality.
Blessings. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2008 : 3:41:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
Including your belief that they all gotta disappear in the end. Obviously.
Obviously. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Guru Kaliuttamananda Giri Swami Ganga Puri -SwamiG
