|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 15 2005 : 11:52:17 AM
|
There are many kinds of truth. Truth in the spiritual sense, truth related and meaningful only to our physical or cultural existence (the stock prices of yesterday, what kinds of emotions does Chopin's Mazarka express,etc), and empirical/scientific truth (law of motions in physics, etc).
The boundary between these can be subtle. Some philosophy or religions even suggest that all three kinds have no difference at all, or have the same source, etc. So the distinction here may be artificial. But allow me to make a distinction here, be it a real difference or just a convention-- a convention for a good reason; for an effective discussion.
The truth which yoga scriptures and Gurus of our era refer to seems to contain only spiritual truth. I think we won't expect an enlightened or partially enlightened beings know more about the stock market than an analysts in the bank. Nor will they know more about Shakespeare than a professor of literature, much less to say about scientific truth like the current status of the superstring theory or algebraic geometry.
In short, by truth in the yogic context, we are referring to something in us. What is changed in the path are: how we value things(e.g. identifying ourselves with the world), our emotions(e.g. Bliss, inner silence ). Not much about knowledge, as far as I could see. At least not in the western sense. Eastern cultures tend to mixing gaining "knowledge" with a attaining a "state". Of course the western culture has no authority in the use of terms like knowledge , energy(another term which very often caused confusion due to different use of words). But if we don't stay with one set of terminology, a mathematician will expect the enlightened beings to prove for him Goldbach conjecture!!
So the yogic conception of truth is not a complete one. Spiritual truth is considered to have no objectiveness in the West, and is only a small part of the western culture. It is fine: after all, no one would expect knowing Beethoven's symphonies by doing yoga. And spiritual truth is indeed important, may be the most important part for most people. But the term truth when come to the western world (or westernized countries like mine, Hong Kong) seems to suggest something much more encompassing than what it really means by the guru. The guru may refers to spiritual truth only, while for many who hear it, "truth" is a much greater term which the guru can't afford to attain. Such misunderstandings can be disastrous for the transmission of yoga, especially to the scientific community to which yoga is like a religion, exaggerating in its promises.
Personally, I am quite interested in scientific truth, those expounded in physics and mathematics, although through meditation and reading spiritual books, I am moving towards spiritual truth.
A thought related to the thread related to siddhis: while we have many funny but completely useless siddhis, not a single one guy in the world got a siddhis of writing great great novels/poetry, or proving the hardest mathematical theorems, etc, something intellectual and can be observed by the whole world. They are always something like telepathy, for which the guy claim to have siddhis has plenty of tricks or excuses to play around even if he is fake. That's again one reason why I think the siddhis are fake----they are guys who cannot do some usual but great things (like writing a great novel); and tried to find some tricks more difficult to be revealed by others. You know, many people could easily recognize a bad novel, and they will probably ask for a copy if you claimed to have write a great mathematical results. Then you cannot cheat for too long. But to demonstrate telepathy/levitation/healing, what you need to do is just to demonstrate before the less rational beings with certain tricks(psychological, physical) and they will spread it out--- very much like doing magic, only done with a different purpose.
|
Edited by - Alvin Chan on Mar 29 2006 12:40:18 AM |
|
|
ycloutier2000
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 7:42:28 PM
|
One guru described the truth as this:
Being in truth is saying what you think and doing what you say.
What you think will change and is directly related to your understanding. But as long as what you think, say and do are aligned, you are with your own personal truth.
I think before graduating to the unchanging, eternal, ultimate spriritual truth, first we need to master this form of truth. If we can't even master this form of truth, how are we to master the ultimate truth? |
 |
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 12:53:43 AM
|
ycloutier2000, again the "personal truth" you mendtioned is only part of the moral/spiritual truth.
It may be true that you need to master that before you discover more spiritual truth. Whether there is any "ultimate" spiritual truth I cannot comment on. But all of these have nothing to do with scientific truth: you don't have to master the personal truth in order to understand or discover scientific truth. There are plenty of both good and bad guys in the scientific community.
Te best thing, of course, is to master as many aspects of truth as possible. |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 09:39:35 AM
|
Hi Alvin
The mind can investigate, but it cannot give you the sense of truth. Neither "spiritual" nor "scientific" concepts of truth is truth.
You wrote:
quote:
So the yogic conception of truth is not a complete one
In Yoga - in Oneness - truth is not a conception at all. It just is.
I can adapt a scientific attitude towards Yoga - then the truth of what is will gradually reveal itself to me.
To me, Yoga is science.
May all your Nows be Here |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 11:19:52 AM
|
Scientific truth (in all areas, from medicine to astronomy) is getting so far and so good and so deep and so wide that we're getting very close to the point where spiritual truth will be pretty apparent via the negative (draw a picture of everything that's not an elephant, and you'l have drawn a very precise picture of an elephant).
See my postings in this thread for an example in the medical world: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....TOPIC_ID=660
Scientists are never going to find prana on their lab equipment. They're never going to penetrate the central delusion via the scientific method. Our inner divinity doesn't show up upon dissection. But as time goes on, everythign that CAN be learned and proven by those methods will be learned and proven....yet some central issues will remain unilluminated. At that point other means of illumination will be applied.
Yogani and others insist that spirituality is on a sharp climb. Perhaps the above will occur at the point of critical mass. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 11:21:23 AM
|
Hi Alvin and Katrine:
I have put it a bit more bluntly somewhere else around here.
It is not the job of human spirituality to adapt itself to science. It is the job of science to adapt itself to human spirituality. Since when have the inner workings of nature been accountable to science?
As Katrine points out, it can be science within each of us, and in our honest sharings -- experiencing the causes and effects that are our practices and experiences, and dutifully recording what that is from the perspective of many individuals. That is the essence of yoga science. Whether that fits someone's particular definition of "science" or not, still, what we see here in these discussions is yoga science. Or the beginnings of it at the very least. It is the recording of events that are related to cause and effect. And from the look of it, there is plenty being recorded around here, over and over again, which is the "repeatable experiment" aspect of science.
Do we collectively not know here what the effects of deep meditation are? Do we collectively not know here what the effects of spinal breathing are? Of course we know, because there are many accounts. And the number of accounts will only increase. Are the results always clearly perceptible and right on the beam? Not always. The vehicles of experience (individual nervous systems) do vary. But somewhere under the bell curve of personal accounts there is a commonality of experience, and we can all see that easily enough if we are paying attention. This is far preferable to spending our time trying to squeeze yoga into a scientific model that is not suitable for investigating this particular kind of cause and effect -- practices yielding experiences.
With or without the blessing of traditional science, the work will advance. The way I see it, traditional science has some catching up to do, and none of us are obliged to sit around and wait. So let's get on with it! 
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 11:58:59 AM
|
I don't think Alvin is saying not to get on with our practices. If we are convinced of the efficacy of Yoga, we may be drawn to practices and benefit from them. It's clear to us all (even the most hard-nosed of scientists) that not all true things are (yet) proven in the scientific sense.
I can synthesize a more specific and focussed question, I think, from what Alvin is asking, maybe because similar thoughts have been going through my own mind. This question is:
Do we misconstrue the scope of 'spiritual' knowledge?
In other words, if we believe a person has 'spiritual' knowledge, do we make a big mistake by thinking that that person has a kind of knowledge they do not have? In other words, 'Do we overestimate enlightenment because we overestimate spiritual knowledge'.
Another interesting question that can follow is,
Are there criteria by which a kind of knowledge can be deemed not 'spiritual', and therefore more naturally the domain of Science?
I think I may have one such criterion, and if true, it is very important. The criterion leads to 'Cause and effect are the domain of Rationality and Science'.
In other words, if a person is 'enlightened', we should be aware that they are not necessarily granted any mastery of cause and effect. The implications of this are enormous. If people knew this and took it to heart, many 'fallen guru/cult' problems would not happen.
The consequences include ( and this is not always immediately obvious) that being enlightened does not necessarily make you an expert on what causes enlightenment, and what does not. Therefore, even if a person is 'enlightened', we should look with great skepticism on their claim, explicit or cultivated, that they have a good or great ability to lead us to enlightenment; because this is a claim in the realm of cause and effect.
There is a lot more to be said about all of this, but I have no time today.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 29 2006 12:10:58 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2006 : 1:18:35 PM
|
quote:
Therefore, even if a person is 'enlightened', we should look with great skepticism on their claim, explicit or cultivated, that they have a good or great ability to lead us to enlightenment; because this is a claim in the realm of cause and effect.
Hi David:
That is a very good point, and I do hope you develop it.
For sure, we are all accountable to the verifications of cause and effect in whatever we present to others as a truth or a way. The question is, how to put a fair measure on that without getting terribly bogged down? The measurements ought not distort the experiment (Heisenberg principle).
I do not mean to pick on you, Alvin, but it is a fact that over-intellectualizing can disrupt our progress. We will be wise to always make a distinction between the practice and the scenery. It is a letting go. If we are faithfully doing our practices (Oh, there is that word, "faith!"), it will eventually bring us into a perception of things as they are, and then the need for third party verifications will drop away. I know that is a scary proposition for a scientist, but it is not so bad, really. Then the matter of objectively verifying cause and effect melts into a subjective experience that is self-evident, not to mention extremely satisfying.
Of course, demonstrating that to others, and, particularly, offering something that can bring others into a similar experience is another matter, as David points out. In that case, we could say that verifying the cause and effect of "the path" is far more important than the experience of the individual practitioner. Of course, they are the same. It is only a matter of the how many practitioners (a statistical measure) we can bring forward to provide a useful verification of the causes and effects involved in a particular path.
You are right, David, if this had been do-able in the past, we'd have avoided a lot of difficulties. On the other hand, even flawed teachers bring knowledge, sometimes a lot, so the science might have failed us on that score, maybe for all the teachers we have seen in the past century!
But that was then and this is now. At least here in AYP it is all hanging out, so if there are some shortcomings (surely there are), they will be there for all of us to see, and hopefully correct. That sort of transparency has not existed in the past, so this is yet another benefit of an open source approach to spiritual practices. If a spiritual path can be verified, and/or be adjusted to be verifiable, then it will eventually become a paradise for serious practitioners.
On the other side of your question, does a person have to be "enlightened" to offer a verifiable path? Well, that is a tricky one that can lead to accusations of "the blind leading the blind." Nevertheless, it ought to be considered. The spiritual condition of the teacher has always been the primary criteria for measuring the path, and it has rarely been the ideal solution. Does it have to be this way? Personally, I am much more in favor of a collective effort, where no one has the ultimate responsibility for verifying everything. Much better to get the verification from a large group that is experiencing cause and effect in common. That we can take to the bank. See, Alvin? I do believe in science. I think it is essential for getting people like me off the pedestal and off the hook. And so much healthier for everyone too. 
On the subject of an individual having strong intellectual tendencies and how that can be a benefit on the path, perhaps some consideration of intellectual methods designed for dissolving "the illusion" would be appropriate. For that, tune in to the new discussion on self-inquiry over here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....TOPIC_ID=968
The discovery and verification of cause and effect is not nearly so straightforward there, because that class of practice (self-inquiry) is dependent on the presence of inner silence, the witness, for results. So the cause and effect is very tricky in that realm of practice. Nevertheless, if the intellect is hungering to do something to find out what the truth is, then self-inquiry is a supplementary route to examine, beyond our essential sitting practices. At least then our search for truth will be happening in the right place, within our own experience of our daily activities.
The guru is in you.
PS -- And yes, I also agree that just because someone is good at some things, it does not mean they are good at everything. This is a myth that is created by the public, and often the "mythee" begins to believe it also. There is the classic case of the movie star believing the inflated headlines about them in the newspaper. It has happened with many gurus too, as the scope of their knowledge has been "misconstrued" (magically expanded to infinity) by their followers. Many of us have seen what that leads to -- sooner or later it leads to a fall, because it is not real.
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Mar 30 2006 : 02:51:54 AM
|
quote:
Do we misconstrue the scope of 'spiritual' knowledge?
That's what I mean, David. And my answer is a big YES, as I have observed.
quote:
PS -- And yes, I also agree that just because someone is good at some things, it does not mean they are good at everything. This is a myth that is created by the public, and often the "mythee" begins to believe it also. There is the classic case of the movie star believing the inflated headlines about them in the newspaper.
While the problem is common even outside the spiritual traditions, I think it's more serious in the spiritual realm: it's a lot more common to find followers in the spiritual realm miscontrue the scope of 'spiritual' knowledge.
The reason, as I see it, is that "truth" in most spiritual traditions came from the east. Probably the concept can be not translated too accurately but only to learn from direct experience. Anyway in English the term "truth" was chosen to mean that concept. And this term is too suggestive to mean something much more, including "cause and effects". So when people have a guru they admire much, they mistook him to know almost any cause and effects.
Example is everywhere: I remember somewhere here in this forum that someone almost consider Yogani to be God. If he/she takes anything to be God, it could be a good sign, isn't it? But that's not the usual case. So even Yogani, who said clearly that he doesn't intend to be a guru, can still be considered as God. It's very common in the spiritual realm. While movie stars also have many blind followers, it's not common to see their followers go THAT far.
May be it's alright, as long as no real harm was done? I don't know.....I just think that it is rather humiliating: the yogis keep talking about "truth", claiming that they "see things as it is", or may be "dispelling ignorance"; but they are generating ignorance in may aspects (especially within the cognitive realm).
The only explanation or excuse I can give is that: the "truth" of the yogis are not the cognitive one. And most of them don't care much about cognitive truth. So probably they really get some "truth"-- in the eastern or spiritual sense. The difference is important. And thus the original thread. It calls for nothing, but an awareness of how varied the term "truth" can have. With this awareness there will be less misery. And the yogis can concentrate on their practices and their notion of truth, rather than extending incorrectly to something else which are better left for someone else. |
Edited by - Alvin Chan on Mar 30 2006 03:02:18 AM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Mar 30 2006 : 03:52:58 AM
|
Alvin
I think when someone learns something valuable about life and it is seen by others also as valuable, then it is natural for that person to share this information, and it is natural for the receiver to want it.
This is the case for "so called gurus" or for "ordinary joes" like you and me.
But its all good, there is no wrong path, all paths lead to God or Enlightenment or whatever you want to call it.
At a stage in a person life Christain Fundamentalism might be exactly what that person needs. If you are into reincarnation, they might spend many lives in this process. They might reach the same state of inner stillness as the avid meditator, they might do great works of service.
Personally Christain Fundamentalism has no draw for me at all. But someone I know lives a very meaningful and valuable life through it.
The same sort of logic can apply to any system. It's what resonates with a person at the time.
The one thing we can be absolutely sure of is - there are spiritual traps in every system, including AYP, this is always part of any process.
I like a system that has discrimination of these inevitable traps high on the agenda. It actually makes it more fun, and we can learn to laugh at ourselves more.
There is only one truth that I keep learning over and over again and that is the "stillness of the here and now". This is as simple as it gets and is recognised by all traditions albeit in various guises.
How a teacher passes this onto other people is another completely different ball game, and that is where the infinite variations and layers of ego and illusion make it so confusing.
So that is why discrimination is so important, it allows us to ask the question - is what I am doing or how I am being right now, where I need to be, am I caught in a trap just now, what is the way out?
My 2 cents
Louis |
Edited by - Sparkle on Mar 30 2006 04:07:02 AM |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Mar 30 2006 : 11:28:55 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~~~
quote:
Originally posted by Sparkle
Alvin
My 2 cents ...Louis
Hello ,
Since Louis gave his 2 cents, I thought I would throw another 3 cents in and make a nickel.
I think all made reasonable points, yet I Have a few brain cramps.
From my POV as I read some posts, I seen truth roughly alluded to as facts. It's also been suggested that Alvin's intellectual horsepower may curtail or get in the way of his progress. For me on this matter, Truth is Truth, unwavering today as it will be in any age, time, space, or creation that manifests. There is only one Truth, one Absolute Truth. If there is more, or variations, on IT, then it cannot be the Truth...consistent, always the same, never changing.
Now, Alvin's intellectual horse power - this ability to discriminate, to tell fine differences apart, 'this and not that', or neti neti as some rishi's proclaim is a path of the intellect to the Supreme. the Ultimate discrimination of all this is not THAT and on the finest level , one comes to the finest level of creation and can see the distinction between the intellect ( Buddhi) and the Transcendent ( Purusha)....this brings one to the Supreme. Even Patanjali has this as one of the sutra's in his works. The technique is not to end up in 'circular interpolation' i.e. chasing the same comparisons and ending up holding ones own tail !!!!.
All roads lead to Rome, yet this path is very rigorous and not for the faint at heart if taken on fully. To this I tip my hat to Alvin if he chooses this path.
Ekam Sad Viprah Bahudha Vadanti - Truth is ONE, Sages call it variously
agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego
|
Edited by - Frank-in-SanDiego on Mar 30 2006 11:53:54 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2006 : 08:09:15 AM
|
There is a lot of misconception about "the truth" today. A lot of websites professing to bring their readers the truth, are actually instigating hate by only telling part of the story. they don't understand good balanced journalism, and justify this by saying "it's the truth".
If they would investigate further, they would find there are at least two sides to every story, and mitigating circumstances, etc.
But they choose to find a story that adds to their anger and hate, and judge people based on that skewed viewpoint.
So there's a lot of difference between the truth of man and absolute truth,
and then there is what you do with it once you have it. |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2006 : 5:36:01 PM
|
Hi Frank
You said:
the Ultimate discrimination of all this is not THAT and on the finest level , one comes to the finest level of creation and can see the distinction between the intellect ( Buddhi) and the Transcendent ( Purusha)....this brings one to the Supreme. Even Patanjali has this as one of the sutra's in his works.
This intrigued me because I have been wondering about how the intellect can bring a person to enlightenment.
I don't quite understand what you are saying and wonder if you could explain it a bit further.
Are you saying, for instance, that a person can analyse to such an extent that they penetrate and penetrate untill their analysis shows them a clear picture of everything including enlightenment
or are you saying the person can see enough to walk past their analysis into enlightenment, as if analysis brought them to the door and all they would have to do would be to open it and walk through.
or perhaps something else.
Thanks in antisipation
Louis
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2006 : 5:51:54 PM
|
| I know you're not asking me, but intellectual curiousity is a path to God. The unending search combined with strong desire creates enough bhakti to get results. |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2006 : 6:34:26 PM
|
Thanks Ether
Yes agreed that it always starts with the intellect, but can the intellect bring us the full way or is there a point when it is a hindrence.
Frank is, I think, talking about jnana yoga, and I am wondering about the mechanisms of this.
Louis |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2006 : 10:13:58 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~~~
Hello Either/Louis,
This Discrimination is Viveka. This is a great power of the intellect. The intellect ( Buddhi) can be a very good tool, with a high level of rigor required, as the windows of perception are cleared to go finer and finer levels of this discriminative power.
Another tool is rtam or unalloyed Truth - some call the Right. This rta ( short form) is consciousness that only knows truth. So, with clarity of consciousness , ones Viveka increases. I would be doing you a dis-service by writing what Patanjali gives in his book. If your interest is great, please consider reading the Yoga Philosophy OF Patanjali , by Swami Hariharananda Aranya, Rendered into English by P.N. Mukerji , second addition 1977. Not all of the works of Patanjali go to the depths of this book which is a 'must' for anyone practicing the sutra's Patanjali describes.
Viveka-khyati ( or the distinction between Purusha and Buddhi, SELF and Intellect) is discussed with great insights. Yet, the evolution from rajas and tamas thinking to Chitta-sattva (* pure cognizant mind) is key to one's discriminative progress. Why is this important to this Viveka? Because with Satvic consciousness, the mind rests in itself, undisturbed and has the *power* to pierce and discriminate this from THAT - it cultures the awareness e.g. clarity of sattva. What happens then? Sampatti - true and balanced insight.
In the final experience it’s the Intuition that delivers the final 'ahhh-ha' of that distinction…the intellect becomes an object for distinction. This is discussed in Chapt 3 sutra 35.
So, where does this Jnana Yoga Ether alludes to in his post? Once established is this highest discriminative state, its called
Vivekaja Jnana. The yogi at that point has knowledge of past, present and future state( if desired), a fully realized being.
agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego
|
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Apr 02 2006 : 4:50:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frank-in-SanDiego
Hari Om
~~~~~~~~
Hello Either/Louis,
This Discrimination is Viveka. This is a great power of the intellect. The intellect ( Buddhi) can be a very good tool, with a high level of rigor required, as the windows of perception are cleared to go finer and finer levels of this discriminative power.
Thought to add this neti neti... but discriminate on what?
Here is how Sri Ramana Maharishi discribes it:
http://davidgodman.org/rteach/whoami1.shtml
'Who am I?' The physical body, composed of the seven dhatus, is not 'I'.
The five sense organs… and the five types of perception known through the senses… are not 'I'.
The five parts of the body which act… and their functions… are not 'I'.
The five vital airs such as prana, which perform the five vital functions such as respiration, are not 'I'.
Even the mind that thinks is not 'I'. In the state of deep sleep vishaya vasanas remain. Devoid of sensory knowledge and activity, even this [state] is not 'I'. After negating all of the above as 'not I, not I', the knowledge that alone remains is itself 'I'. The nature of knowledge is sat-chit-ananda [being-consciousness-bliss].
agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
What "truth" encompass
