Einstein and Bill Gates are not enlightened people. They are skilled people. Anybody can develop these skills, but nobody can develop enlightenment. Enlightenment is like a light switch. It is either on or off.
Yes, of course. You are absolutely right.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38028]Einstein and Bill Gates are not enlightened people. They are skilled people. Anybody can develop these skills, but nobody can develop enlightenment. Enlightenment is like a light switch. It is either on or off.[/QUOTE]
Of course Einstein is not ‘enlightened’. As if a mind like his would even assert such a ridiculous, nonsensical concept.
I believe that Einstein’s and Gate’s light switches were/are “on”.
[QUOTE=Asuri;38025]I don’t think enlightenment is necessarily spiritual.[/QUOTE]
I agree, poor wording on my part, but either way I am not exactly sure I want either of them.
[QUOTE=Asuri;38022]
I think what you’re saying though, is that mother nature is closer to god than human nature, with its constant babble of words and thinking, right?[/QUOTE]
not quite… I mean that after [I]reading spiritual books, watching spiritual dvds, seeking for gurus, finding ones, leaving them, seeking for other ones, buying more books, rushing for the yoga workshop, digging in to the metaphysics and quantum things, ayurveda, kundalini yoga[/I] …I found myself at the same point of unity and happiness as I were a kid in the woods…but with the baggage of knowledge that just are words and images.
Seems like we are born naturally happy and connected to the divine. Then we learn a lot of things about how to be natural and connected, then we forget everything we have learned to become natural and connected to the divine. 
spiritual books, watching spiritual dvds, seeking for gurus, finding ones, leaving them, seeking for other ones, buying more books, rushing for the yoga workshop, digging in to the metaphysics and quantum things, ayurveda, kundalini yoga
Knowledge is self-hypnotising. It makes us believe that knowledge is a “thing” that is stored out there (in everything listed above) and that can be “transferred” en bloc to my storage tank. Burdened by this concept, a niyama “svadyaya” has been carelessly translated as “reading scriptures”. Knowledge is a dissecting ability that lets one see deeper by unveiling the apparent and learning through experience. The sources can only trigger a process, but can never ‘transfer’ knowledge. So, svadyaya should be rightly understood as ability of ‘spiritual reading’.
Yoga is inclusive. Intelligence need not be unappreciated wholesale. The question is whether we allow it to rule us or we use it as a scalpel. If we can use, we can tame it, mend it and shape it. Then the intelligence that ordinarily keeps the “ahankara” fire burning becomes emotional intelligence. With ability to read/ perceive spiritually it becomes spiritual intelligence, making it easier to transcend it in the advanced spiritual state.
That many times spiritual advancement is seen in the villages need not be a surprise. Very true that we are born happy and spiritual. Yoga is not hoarding of knowledge; it is more of unlearning, getting rid of the baggage, avoiding the conditioning that borrowed knowledge brings, letting go of unnecessary overload of memory. Those who are not ‘loaded’ have less to unload. Afterall, what we set out to find in spiritual journey is right within us that we ourselves make inaccessible through the autocracy of misplaced intelligence.
That is all well said and done, but lets be honest, if it were not for these scriptures in the first place we would know about Yoga. I think many do not appreciate that behind those wonderful asanas, pranayamas and dharanas is a long history of metaphysical discussion and debate known as Samkhya. The analogy that comes to mind is that of a car. Yes, you don’t need to know anything about the pure mechanics, chemistry and physics to drive a car, but you still need to appreciate that this car would not be possible without the long history of research into philosophy, science and mathematics.
I think often people seem to leave the theory out as if it does not matter. Yet, even in music we have to study theory before we practice.
Its not a knowledge what we call yoga repeating some other words after sages of the past. The real knowledge has a solid basis. An experience or at least a strong logical chain. I think if I didnt read all those books (including yoga ones), I still would have the knowledge, because general conclusions about this world came to my mind before I found them in yoga sources.
It is easy to make the mistake that we would have the knowledge anyway if we did not get it from books because hindsight is 20/20. I use to think this before about electricity and how it really is simple to work out just turn a coil in a magnet and presto we have electricity(obviously it is not as simple as that) but when appreciated historically it was not so obvious. Likewise, the science of meditation may seem very obvious, but it is not so obvious, otherwise we would all be doing it naturally before reading books on it. It is a constructed technique based on a long history of theoretical discussion and debate.
I think if you really want to appreciate Yoga you need to look at the theory of Samkhya behind it. Samkhya literally means analysis and enumeration of the categories within existence and through the use of pure rational argument it delinates the entire spectrum of evolution of all things in existence and explain the cause of why creation happens. It is based on this that the existence of the Self as a pure witness to all of creation became known and it was understood that the self is covered by several layers of holographic reality - our being the most gross of those layers. It is based on this the entire Yogic anatomy was drawn and the various Yogic techniques created in order to access this Self. Hence evolved meditation. It did not just appear out of nowhere. It is a proper science which began as theory and then turned into practice.
I guess, theory started from exploring results of non-regular, “occasional” practice.
On meditation: i think it doesn`t need so much theory around (not only my opinion).
Do we create all complications just to make sure in what we already know well?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surya Deva
Yes, because a genius always creates.
They create just because they want to be appreciated and remembered after their death…thats it.
@ CM I don’t think so. People create because it’s an outlet for them. They want to share the beauty of what they created with others. They want others to see how they interpret what they see. I’m sure there are some who do so for selfish reasons, but for most it is unselfish. It’s how they communicate! Not so sure I totally agree with SD either. Not all genius people are creative, but creative people can be geniuses in the perspective field.
This topic is something I’ve been pondering since CM posted it. There are many great, insightful answers at very opposite ends of the spectrum. Not sure we can definitively discount any of them.
In looking at myself, the Masters, and the people around me I have come to the conclusion that intelligence can, and doesn’t have to be an obstacle. Knowledge is more memory based, whereas intelligence is right here right now. Example would be you have the knowledge to ride a bike, but you use intelligence when you begin to loose control and have to decide what to do to prevent crashing the bike and injuring yourself.
So I think knowledge gives us the basis we need and intelligence is the vehicle to allow spirituality to either unfold or not. Both are important. It just depends on the individual and how they want to use their knowledge and intelligence. Ego does play a huge part and can prohibit a truly knowledgeable person from being intelligent.
[QUOTE=Asuri;38025]I don’t think enlightenment is necessarily spiritual. .[/QUOTE]
5 stars!
[QUOTE=Sasha;38400]Its not a knowledge what we call yoga repeating some other words after sages of the past. The real knowledge has a solid basis. An experience or at least a strong logical chain. I think if I didnt read all those books (including yoga ones), I still would have the knowledge, because general conclusions about this world came to my mind before I found them in yoga sources.[/QUOTE]
agree… This doesn’t have to be yoga or metaphysics, Islam, hinduism, voodoo, or logic or contemporary brain science.
Logic denies existence of god. Logic deals with everything we can touch or experience.
To follow the logic, intellect and knowledge … Yoga is just a set of techniques that allow us to achive trance like state, which is considered experience of the divine…god… whatever. But we are able to achieve these higher consciousness state without knowledge wahtsoeve.
We do not need knowledge to stay connected to the Divine. We just need tremendous will power not to be sucked in to the craziness of the world (which is hard to do in the remote village).
And Yoga (and many others) offers techniques to build this will power and to stay connected to the divine.
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;38406]@ CM I don’t think so. People create because it’s an outlet for them. They want to share the beauty of what they created with others. They want others to see how they interpret what they see. [/QUOTE]
would you please give me an example?
Logic denies existence of god. Logic deals with everything we can touch or experience…To follow the logic, intellect and knowledge … Yoga is just a set of techniques that allow us to achive trance like state, which is considered experience of the divine…god… whatever. But we are able to achieve these higher consciousness state without knowledge wahtsoeve.
Admittedly, words are incapable of carrying the full essence. But words do carry subjective impressions howsoever deficient. An emphatic statement like “logic denies existence of god” is a good example. It is actually, logic (as I understand) denies (that sounds unquestionable to me) existence of god (in my own understanding). These unsaid parts of our expressions never bother us and the listener anyway receives it through his own intellectual filters, as I am doing.
But, it has always helped me to become aware of these gaps for better understanding and expression next time. For example, “if logic deals with everything we can touch or experience,” what about everything that we can’t touch but know for sure that it exists? like, mind, energy, atoms and so on. Perhaps I can’t touch them, but someone else could. Perhaps I can learn how to know them. Perhaps Yoga may not be just techniques.
Forums grow on debates, and debates are inevitable as long as the same word means thousand things to thousand people. Words are good wrestlers, but they do shadow-boxing most of the times.
God is a word. So is Yoga.
We do not need knowledge to stay connected to the Divine. We just need tremendous will power not to be sucked in to the craziness of the world (which is hard to do in the remote village).
It is through your knowledge you are able to do so. Knowledge is memory. It is everything you’ve learned up until the present. Intelligence is how you apply the knowledge that you’ve acquired. So you can have the knowledge, but not the intelligence to apply it. My opinion, of course.
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by lotusgirl
@ CM I don’t think so. People create because it’s an outlet for them. They want to share the beauty of what they created with others. They want others to see how they interpret what they see.
would you please give me an example?
__________________[/QUOTE]
An Idiot Savant (like in the movie rain man) Some can play the most beautiful music but have never taken a lesson. Outside of their area of expertise, they can barely function or articulate. They have no motive or reason.
Or a Zen Masters beautiful Haiku or rice paper artwork. Perhaps a child who paints or colors a picture.
I agree that some of the better known writers, composers, artists are motivated by wanting to be remembered. In the beginning, perhaps not. But as others stroke their ego some of their motivation is ego-related. But there are many creative, honest, good hearted beautiful people there who only want to express and share the beauty they see.
I don’t think making a blanket statement that all creative people do so to be appreciated and remembered is accurate. We cannot possibly know what goes on inside their head.
Logic denies existence of god. Logic deals with everything we can touch or experience.
Then tell me if logic denies the existence of god, then where did we come to know about god from?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38457]Then tell me if logic denies the existence of god, then where did we come to know about god from?[/QUOTE]
The same place we came to know about Unicorns, Santa Claus, and Elves.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38459]The same place we came to know about Unicorns, Santa Claus, and Elves.[/QUOTE]
Wrong answer. Santa Claus, Unicorns and Elves are chimeras of the imagination. We know where they come from.
However concepts such as god are ontological, they belong to a third category of knowledge which is inferred. In all philosophical schools god has been posited as a necessary entiity in order to explain the very fact of creation, the cause of suffering and the existence of consciousness. Such as Aristotle’s argument of the prime mover, the unmoved mover which is demanded by logic to end the chain of infinite regression.