Academic Mind vs Spiritual Mind

Spirituality
#1

I would like to start a discussion on a matter that stands pretty much at the centre of my life at this moment and has put me at a crossroads. I remember what my acharya said to me when I was following Tantra Yoga in the first year of university, that he was offered a proposal to do a Phd, which he declined. He opined that academia wastes time. Matters that can be resolved quickly by a clear mind which may take hours or days, will take academics years to eventually implement. I saw wisdom in what he was saying.

Recently, I had a debate with a friend of mine who is a major academic at the local university, and has been published in several prestigious journals, lectures at the university and recently completed his Phd, on what was the point of all of his accomplishments. Does it have real influence and does it actually affect change? Upon inquiring into his Phd, I realised just how obvious his conclusion was the moment he told me his research question, but this obvious conclusion he said needed to be proven through empirical data through years of research and supported with theoretical background. I also noted how egotistical he had become because of all these accomplishments, and he did actually admit to me, “What it really is all about is seeing your name in lights” He also admitted to me that academics do not always affect change, but at least they get the ideas out to be considered by policy makers.

I then realised what academia was all about. It was all about persuading policy makers, it was about politics and power. No wonder it takes academia years to implement something which somebody with a clear mind and resolve can implement in days or months, and come to realizations that take academics years of research, within hours or even minutes.

This realization has motivated a major decision I am making in life. Rather, than pursuing the academic route, which many have recommended to me and said I would be successful in, I have decided to pursue the spiritual route. Rather than becoming a Phd, I want to become a swami. I have noted definite differences in the discourses given by academics and the discourses given by swamis, and I have said to myself, “I want to be just like a swami” I will share those observations:

  1. Academics tend to think fast and speak fast. In contrast, swamis tend to speak slowly, in a very measured way, fully present to the moment and changes taking place.
  2. Academics tend to have loads of notes or slides. In contrast, a swami tend to have nothing. He/she begins with a single subject, and then through a conversational style holds an engaging discourse for hours.
  3. Academics tend to be dry and mechanical. In contrast, swamis tend to be humerous and light.
  4. Academics are very quick to criticise and condemn and actually shut off if they hear a buzz word they don’t like. In contrast, swamis tend to be very open and accepting of hearing any kind of view.

I have mainly seen the discourses of swamis online, but I was fortunate enough to attend Sadhguru’s Jaggu vasudeva live discourse when he came to my local town. I was very impressed. He spoke for 3 hours without notes, could formulate highly convincing and eloquent logical arguments, tell stories and jokes and keep everybody hanging on his every word for the entire duration. The man exuded charisma. At the end, people pretty much fell at his feet.

Here is an online discourse by Sadhguru:

Osho:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWh11S7E-I&feature=relmfu

Dayananda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfSfynccA8&feature=related

Krishnamurthy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSm-pxiPTXg&feature=related

Satchitananda:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb44mVpJYq0

Indeed, each one has their own unique style, but notice how alike they sound and how their mind seems to work in the same way.

What do you think? Is there a differenence between an academic mind and spiritual mind, and which of these is more likely to bring about real change in the world?

1 Like
#2

I would tend to agree with you , Im thinking of how the study of buddhism in the west was very accademic , very dry , it was probably not until the sixties that people in the west engaged with the practises . I know when my Buddhist teacher who had lived in India for about twenty years came to uk to share the Dharma , people in charge were fearful of meditation and did not like him leading pujas , I think they thought people may go mad . I beleive they were happier sitting around talking about the dharma in an accademic manner , it was a subject for study .
I would have thought if one had a sadhana first and then engaged in a accademic study that this would be preferable , but an accademic study is not necessary , but adds to knowledge or makes something more accessible to some , Im glad accademia are there . Richard Alpert was an accdemic at Harvard and later became Ram Dass under the influence of the great sage Neem Karoli Baba . Of course they threw him out of Harvard
eventually there is some great film footage of him talking about his views on acid and they way we behaved in the western world that was very revolutionary and dharmic in its nature and I think this was before he had set foot in India .
I remember seeing great debates by accademics (on tv ) discussing concepts , all so called experts and thinking I had heard or read buddhists talking about these concepts with much greater clarity and understanding and they had been doing so for thousands of years , ago of course the accademics were great western minds and the Dharma farers were eastern and did not have any letters after their names so were not asked on the programmes , presumably through ignorance rather than wilful exclusion on the parts of the programme makers. Accademics presumably have to defend their positions alot so it all becomes a bit dualistic . But its all good im not sure I would have been cut out for accademia so my choice is easy . You of course have a mind that could follow that route but im sure you wont , as you have indicated .
I definitely think the spiritual mind brings about change .

#3

It?s nice to put your thoughts out there and see what bounces back but it seems to me you already made up your mind, I educated myself when I was young; I received a degree in engineering but majored in life.

#4

I think this calls for a few cliches.
[ol]
[li]Great accomplishments are ten percent inspiration and ninety percent perspiration.[/li][li]Renunciation is usually more effective when you actually have something to renounce.[/li][/ol]

The second one isn’t really a cliche. I made it up.

I don’t think you really want to effect any real change, what you want is for someone else to do it. What you really want is a nice comfortable life where you don’t have to do anything except talk about what other people should be doing. But you know it’s one thing to talk in abstract terms about what needs to be done, and quite another thing to identify something specific in some real place, devise a plan for how to accomplish it, marshall the necessary forces, and actually execute the plan.

In order to effect real change, you need inspiration, you need the will to accomplish it, and you need the know-how to actually get something done. There’s plenty of inspiration around, and there are lots of people who say they want to make a change, but there is a shortage of people who can actually get something done. Take Anna Hazare for example, the guy behind the successful redevelopment of Ralegan Siddhi. He got something done. He’s not a swami, he spent fifteen years in the army. I’d be willing to bet that’s where he acquired the knowledge and the ability to get things done. If I were you, I think I’d join the army.

How about academic mind versus spiritual mind versus engineering mind?

#5

SD,

It will help you to put the “vs” factor under the microscope. To see something as a pair of opposites is by itself a need of an academic mind and not spiritual. No reason why these could be mutually exclusive mindsets. A better term would be one’s mind in an academic mode or spiritual mode.

Most of the differentiating details you have given are outward or manifest behavioral differences as perceived by you. One needs to ask for example, whether Sage Patanjali was a spiritual master or an academic stalwart. In reality both the modes are in search of truth; the methodologies differ. An academician needs verbiage and tons of paper because his/her search is from observation of many to infer one hypothesis. While a spiritual pursuit starts with One holistic principle as the hypothesis that is seen reflected in many instances as its validation. An academician’s truth is ‘out there’, spiritual is ‘in here’.

But, in my view, a person like you would become a wonderful resource if you pursue both. It is not my field, but I suspect that the particle physics and the genetic engineering the scientists have already reached a very subtle domain and the Quantum concepts are showing them the limits of traditional thinking. Perhaps the meeting points between the future science and the age-old scriptures is around the corner. You could be one of the pioneers. Your potential is known, inclination is not.

#6

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;54517]SD,

It will help you to put the “vs” factor under the microscope. To see something as a pair of opposites is by itself a need of an academic mind and not spiritual. No reason why these could be mutually exclusive mindsets. A better term would be one’s mind in an academic mode or spiritual mode.

Most of the differentiating details you have given are outward or manifest behavioral differences as perceived by you. One needs to ask for example, whether Sage Patanjali was a spiritual master or an academic stalwart. In reality both the modes are in search of truth; the methodologies differ. An academician needs verbiage and tons of paper because his/her search is from observation of many to infer one hypothesis. While a spiritual pursuit starts with One holistic principle as the hypothesis that is seen reflected in many instances as its validation. An academician’s truth is ‘out there’, spiritual is ‘in here’.

But, in my view, a person like you would become a wonderful resource if you pursue both. It is not my field, but I suspect that the particle physics and the genetic engineering the scientists have already reached a very subtle domain and the Quantum concepts are showing them the limits of traditional thinking. Perhaps the meeting points between the future science and the age-old scriptures is around the corner. You could be one of the pioneers. Your potential is known, inclination is not.[/QUOTE]

Good answer!! Every time I see ‘vs’, I think of the buddhist nun, Tenzin Palmo saying how you never find inner peace when you hold an ‘us vs them’ mentality. This, I couldn’t agree with more. If you are always separating yourself from others, you with never find unity and equanimity.

#7

Some very good answers there, thank you very much.

I don’t think you really want to effect any real change, what you want is for someone else to do it. What you really want is a nice comfortable life where you don’t have to do anything except talk about what other people should be doing. But you know it’s one thing to talk in abstract terms about what needs to be done, and quite another thing to identify something specific in some real place, devise a plan for how to accomplish it, marshall the necessary forces, and actually execute the plan.

This is partly true, but the reason I cannot affect real change, is simply peace I don’t have the power and wouldn’t know where to begin. Affecting social change requires persuastion, influence, it is not a one man thing. Rosa Parker may indeed haver refused to give up her seat, but if it were not for others of her kind who took up the cause, then nothing would have happened.

Affecting small changes like saving a rain forest or saving a whale are doable, but affect real changes at the root, such as replacing capitalism with a more ethical, ecofriendly, fair system is not so easy. To affect such changes you need to have influence and power and massive support. There are countless people involved in politics, academia trying to bring about these change, nothing has happened.

Take Anna Hazare for example, the guy behind the successful redevelopment of Ralegan Siddhi. He got something done. He’s not a swami, he spent fifteen years in the army. I’d be willing to bet that’s where he acquired the knowledge and the ability to get things done. If I were you, I think I’d join the army.

Yes, but how common are people like Anna Hazare? Not very common at all, these people naturally are gifted with luck, charm, influence and power. Hazare had a spiritual experience back in the army where he saw all his friends die, prompting him to ask questions about life. He got in touch with Swami Vivekananda’s philosophy and his modern day interpretation of karma yoga and seva. He then dedicated his life to seva. When he got back to his village, he saw the condition of it, and resolved to change it. He got in touch with a local water management expert, and asked him to get involved. Hazare, also fought against corruption, by going on hunger strikes and bringing the government down to its knees. An ordinary person going on a hunger strike makes no difference, but when an extraordinary person goes on a hunger strike, it does.

Not everybody can do what Hazare did, even if the intention is there. Not everybody can do what Gandhi did, even if the intention is there. These people by god’s grace are already gifted with influence, power, and luck(karma to be precise) For ordinary people like you and me, no matter how much we try, we fail.

We lack the influence, power and luck because we are lesser developed spiritually. Much less solving the worlds problem, we must first solve the problem of our inner turmoil. The forces within which tear us apart, preventing us from even making one good decision in life, need to be first resolved. Self-change leads to world change. If you are not in proper order, then you can guarantee, that nothing you do will make a difference.

My favourite Einstein quote, “You cannot solve the problems of the world with the same consciousness that was used to create them”

#8

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;54517]SD,

It will help you to put the “vs” factor under the microscope. To see something as a pair of opposites is by itself a need of an academic mind and not spiritual. No reason why these could be mutually exclusive mindsets. A better term would be one’s mind in an academic mode or spiritual mode.

Most of the differentiating details you have given are outward or manifest behavioral differences as perceived by you. One needs to ask for example, whether Sage Patanjali was a spiritual master or an academic stalwart. In reality both the modes are in search of truth; the methodologies differ. An academician needs verbiage and tons of paper because his/her search is from observation of many to infer one hypothesis. While a spiritual pursuit starts with One holistic principle as the hypothesis that is seen reflected in many instances as its validation. An academician’s truth is ‘out there’, spiritual is ‘in here’.

But, in my view, a person like you would become a wonderful resource if you pursue both. It is not my field, but I suspect that the particle physics and the genetic engineering the scientists have already reached a very subtle domain and the Quantum concepts are showing them the limits of traditional thinking. Perhaps the meeting points between the future science and the age-old scriptures is around the corner. You could be one of the pioneers. Your potential is known, inclination is not.[/QUOTE]

Well said Suhas Tambe!

[B]Surya Deva[/B]: Since I’ve know you (on the forum) you have very much contributed from an intellectual standpoint and only very occasionally would we see your more humane or vulnerable side. You already have a deep rooted spiritual side, you have instead decided to intellectualise it rather than feeling it, trusting it and expressing it.

#9

SD,

It will help you to put the “vs” factor under the microscope. To see something as a pair of opposites is by itself a need of an academic mind and not spiritual. No reason why these could be mutually exclusive mindsets. A better term would be one’s mind in an academic mode or spiritual mode.

One cannot help but not see things as a pair of opposites, because we are living in a world of opposites: hot and cold, light and darkness, good and evil, pain and pleasure, ignorance and knowledge etc. In order to be practical, we need to see things as opposites. For example pain and pleasure are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for pleasure. Light and darkness are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for light. Good and bad are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for good. If we start to see everything as relative, we would end up living in a chaotic world. Where murdering another life would be the equivalent to saving somebodies life.

Most of the differentiating details you have given are outward or manifest behavioral differences as perceived by you. One needs to ask for example, whether Sage Patanjali was a spiritual master or an academic stalwart. In reality both the modes are in search of truth; the methodologies differ. An academician needs verbiage and tons of paper because his/her search is from observation of many to infer one hypothesis. While a spiritual pursuit starts with One holistic principle as the hypothesis that is seen reflected in many instances as its validation. An academician’s truth is ‘out there’, spiritual is ‘in here’.

I think a case could be made that it is not entirely subjective i.e, my perception. The links I have provided show many of the observations I have noted about how spiritual people work. In fact in scientific studies it has been demonstrated using research methods that spiritual minds do have certain objective features: they tend to be equanimous, they tend to be effortless, free and spontaneous, they tend to be joyful.

Sage Patanjali was obviously not an academic, but a practitioner of Yoga. This is because his descriptions are very detailed of the experiences one has when practicing Yoga and he delinates all the stages from the beginning to the end, and gives detailed descriptions of the kind of psychic powers that get activated. He also gives tips, advice to the reader on how to deal with common obstacles faced in Yoga. It is safe to say then Patanjali’s Yogasutras is a manuel on Yoga based on direct experiences.

But, in my view, a person like you would become a wonderful resource if you pursue both. It is not my field, but I suspect that the particle physics and the genetic engineering the scientists have already reached a very subtle domain and the Quantum concepts are showing them the limits of traditional thinking. Perhaps the meeting points between the future science and the age-old scriptures is around the corner. You could be one of the pioneers. Your potential is known, inclination is not.

This sounds like to me having your cake and eating it at the same time. Or going right and left at the same time. If I take the academic route I will be involved in research to prove what I already know, I will be writing articles in journals and sucking up to some academic panel. I will put the ideas out there, but whether they accepted or rejected will all be based on politics. I may present the ideal research paper, but still if the panel does not like my ideas, I cannot do anything.

You give the example of quantum mechanics. Well, do you know that ever since 1930’s quantum mechanics has been proven. Yet, despite this, the mainstream even today in 2011 have not accepted it. In fact, at one point discussing that there was no observer dependent reality became taboo in the academic world, and people lost their jobs. Even today mentioning anything about consciousness in a physics community attracts derision. Similarly, parapsychological research has provided positive evidence for psychic phenomena in thousands of studies from 1900 to 2000 - still it is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

To get new ideas accepted in the academic world takes loads of time. The first step is the new idea is ridiculed. The second step is the idea starts getting debated to death. The third step is the idea starts getting accepted by a minority. The fourth step is the idea gets accepted by the mainstream, pretending they were never against it in the first place.
This entire process from step 1 to step 4 can decades to centuries.

Academia is politics. It is not at all the objective, scientific and fair world that it has been made out to be. I know many people involved in academia and they tell me how corrupt this world is. I have myself seen how corrupt it is.

#10

In reality both the modes are in search of truth; the methodologies differ. An academician needs verbiage and tons of paper because his/her search is from observation of many to infer one hypothesis. While a spiritual pursuit starts with One holistic principle as the hypothesis that is seen reflected in many instances as its validation. An academician’s truth is ‘out there’, spiritual is ‘in here’.

Again, these are not mutually equivalent. The “out there” approach has a definite limitation, that is it can only tell you about the world insofar as you are conscious of it, it cannot tell you anything about the world beyond the senses. Neil Bohr argued this too, he said quantum physics was the end-of-the-road for physics. That is because we cannot measure the quantum, we cannot see the quantum. We know it is there, but none of our physical instruments can measure it. Now to go beyond the quantum, there is only one way, in here. The rest of the research needs to be done in consciousness itself.

#11

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54534]One cannot help but not see things as a pair of opposites, because we are living in a world of opposites: hot and cold, light and darkness, good and evil, pain and pleasure, ignorance and knowledge etc. In order to be practical, we need to see things as opposites. For example pain and pleasure are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for pleasure. Light and darkness are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for light. Good and bad are not mutually equivalent, we have a natural bias for good. If we start to see everything as relative, we would end up living in a chaotic world. Where murdering another life would be the equivalent to saving somebodies life.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’m talking about human relationships though. I don’t think the universe is that black and white that you can just easily slap on a ‘one size fits all’ ‘ying and yang’ answer like that. My point is, If you create separation in your heart, how on earth could you find harmony? As soon as you start going ‘this verses that’, your just setting up dualities, which I kind of feel is the OPPOSITE of wisdom. That’s just my point of view anyway… gee, that answer I just gave was nearly ‘spiritual’… I haven’t spoken like that in years… must be all the recent meditation lol

#12

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;54539]Yeah, I’m talking about human relationships though. I don’t think the universe is that black and white that you can just easily slap on a ‘one size fits all’ ‘ying and yang’ answer like that. My point is, If you create separation in your heart, how on earth could you find harmony? As soon as you start going ‘this verses that’, your just setting up dualities, which I kind of feel is the OPPOSITE of wisdom. That’s just my point of view anyway… gee, that answer I just gave was nearly ‘spiritual’… I haven’t spoken like that in years… must be all the recent meditation lol[/QUOTE]

It is not, it is a spectrum. But a spectrum is made of two poles. On one end you have say pain and the other end you have pleasure. On one end you have bad and the other side you have good. These dualities have to be acknowledged. I will give you an example when the Muslim first invaded Sindh in India, a strong Buddhist stronghold, the Buddhist’s rosaries, and peace and compassion had no effect on the bloodthirsty Muslim invaders. Similarly, Tibets peace had no effect on Chinese military.

This means we have to acknowledge dualities, such as labelling certain entities as evil like the cruel Muslim invaders of India or the Chinese invaders of Tibet, and then appropriate action has to be taken.

You cannot live in a world where dualities are accepted as equal. Like I said, otherwise we would be living in a chaotic world. Where evil would be equivalent to good, pain to pleasure.

#13

“What do you think? Is there a differenence between an academic mind and spiritual mind, and which of these is more likely to bring about real change in the world?”

As far as having a mind which is inclined towards the academic, it is just a difference of orientation. The academic is largely centered around the intellect, that is his only means of gathering understanding. And to understand the limitation of being an academic, one will have to understand the limitations of the intellect itself. The academic can continue gathering libraries worth of knowledge into one’s mind, but as far as one’s own being is concerned, one remains the same. If one had been living out of unconsciousness, that unconsciousness continues. Neither is the mere gathering of information going to trigger any transformation in one’s being, nor is it capable of awakening a certain quality of clarity which is capable of seeing into the very heart of existence. On the contrary, the more and more knowledgeable one becomes is often the more and more clouded one’s perception - because the moment one starts clinging to knowledge, one has become prejudiced, one cannot see anything else beyond it. It is not just the case with the academic, or the scholar, but anybody who clings to knowledge. It has even happened with those who have been practicing methods of the spiritual sciences, many have been clinging to their knowledge in such a way, that it has made it almost impossible to investigate with an open, fresh, and receptive inquiry. That would require a recognition of one’s ignorance, that would require one to put one’s knowledge aside and enter consciously into the unknown. If you are entering into the search with any pre-determined conclusions or assumptions, the mind is such, that it will see whatever one wants to see. If one wants to see God, one will see God. If one wants to see a thousand gods, one will see a thousand gods. But depending on one’s identifications of the mind, one will project according to those identifications. Those identifications are just certain fragments of knowledge which the mind has been clinging to. So it is not just the case with the “academics”, but with most who are too identified with the intellect, that they continue gathering more and more knowledge, which may be useful in certain areas, but by itself is absolutely useless in the expansion of consciousness towards one’s freedom.

#14

I think Surya Deva would make a better mullah than a swami. Swami’s, after all, generally do not embrace an ideology of hatred as Surya Deva does, nor do they seek to form alliances with violent extremists, as Surya Deva does.

#15

Your post has been reported for a completely unprovoked and nasty attack and your obvious attempt at flame baiting

#16

For the benefit of anyone who might read this in the future, Surya Deva’s hate mongering is on full display in the thread on Libya uprising. Whose favor is he trying to curry with his obvious lies? It really is inexplicable that he would want to show solidarity with muslims, when just a few days earlier he was going on for pages about how the muslims persecuted hindus. This demonstrates an unstable personality that isn’t fit for much of anything except posting on internet forums.

#17

It should also be pointed out that Surya Deva himself has repeatedly attempted to instill fear:

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54577]The Western governments are going to be in deep trouble. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then threats to Iran. And now Libya. What this is going to do is strength the resolve of the Muslim countries to unite against war with the West. The Western governments cannot continue to get away in invading soverign countries in the name of civilisizing. Enough is enough. This is been going on for centures. Karma is going to hit very hard soon.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54578]But the West are now playing with fire. There are many countries that hate the West today. This includes the Muslim world, China, and Russia. If they came together it would spell disaster for the West.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54635]I really am sick of this and its really alienating me from the West. Very few people realise just how much trouble the West is in. Non-western countries hate the West: Russia hates the West; China hates the West; The muslim world hates the West; Cuba hates the West; North Korea hates the west; hundreds of millions of Indians hate the west(only the 10% wannabe Western people who speak English, love the West) The West has no friends in this world, and now only enemies. When the collective hate of these countries merges together, the West is in deep trouble.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54638]The West is currently spoiling the peace of the entire world. It is on its way to disaster of massive proportion.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54809]If there is any terrorists here, it is the West. The end of the West is nigh. There are laws in this universe and that balance dharma and adharma, when the forces of adharama become preponderant, then the universe reacts to restore the balance. The West is a highly arrogant, aggressive and imperalistic force that thinks it can trample over any country because of its military superiority, the universe will now pay it its just desserts.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;54863] You openly support wars in other parts of the world because you yourself don’t know what it is like to be at war.
But you will indeed get to know this.[/QUOTE]

#18

Buzz of troll

#19

It’s buzz [I]off[/I], numbskull. Oh yes, one more thing. Surya Deva is not supporting ordinary muslims, as the international community is doing. He is supporting the Libyan dictator Ghadafi, who can only remain in power by killing his own people. Surya Deva is so blinded by hatred that he’s not even sure what he’s angry about. Swami Deva? I don’t think so.

#20

Asuri,

There may be an element of anger in his words, healthy or unhealthy, but your approach is not helping either himself nor yourself. One has intelligence, I am certain one can find a way to express oneself without transforming it into a violent argument.