Intelligence and spirituality

Spirituality
#61

[QUOTE=Sasha;38404]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]

Again, I think this simply betrays the lack of historical appreciation. Yes, all knowledge is already potential within us, but it actually requires experience and thinking to unlock that potential. Many things you take for granted today were not taken for granted in the past. The notion of civil rights, human rights and womens rights for example in most societies in the past was completely alien. The notion of gravity and atoms were alien.

Which guy one day thought, “I know I will just try an experiment where I will indefinitely hold onto one thought and see what happens” As unlikely as some guy thinking, “Hey I wonder what will happen if I turn this coil in the magnet” Such discoveries are only made after deliberate thinking. Likewise, meditation was not just happened upon, but it was something created after very deliberate thinking. It is the brainchild of philosophy. This is why the creators of meditation, the Vedic risis, called it a vidya, meaning science.

#62

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38463]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.[/QUOTE]

So you use modern science in an attempt to reason god into existence, and ‘right off’ more fundamental forms of science, and then refer to ancient philosophy accomplish the same goal, and consequently ignore modern philosophy. Isn’t that what ‘the enlightenment’ was all about? Isn’t that what Descarte was all about? Didn’t Nietzsche talk about this, and say ‘god is dead’? See how you need to pick and choose your evidence to suit your agenda, rather than let the evidence shape your views?

#63

[QUOTE=CityMonk;38424]would you please give me an example?[/QUOTE]

god created this world for us mortals to appriciate or whats it for if no ones is there to enjoy n apppriciate.:roll:

#64

[QUOTE=prasad;38466]god created this world for us mortals to appriciate or whats it for if no ones is there to enjoy n apppriciate.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Gee god, thanks for cancer, babies drowning, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, priests raping little boys, famine, war, and all the other stuff you gave us… thanks a f#$king lot.

#65

The “enlightenment” is a misnomer for the age of materialism. It all begins with Descrates beginning with a false dualism that has become a dogma of our modern age. If you ask me, it was Descartes who killed god.

In any case my point was that god is not a concept of the imagination but an ontological concept. It is an entity required to explain the fact of creation, the causing of suffering and the existence of consciousness. It as as valid as is “gravity” and “atoms” which are also ontological concepts and and required to explain things in experience.

#66

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38467]Gee god, thanks for cancer, babies drowning, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, priests raping little boys, famine, war, and all the other stuff you gave us… thanks a f#$king lot.[/QUOTE]

As long as you live in a plane of duality expect all of this, and more to happen. It is you who have chosen to be in this plane of duality. This has nothing to do with god. If I turn my back on my parents, and go and do my own thing, whatever happens as a result of that is my responsibility and not theirs. I have no right to blame them.

#67

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38468]The “enlightenment” is a misnomer for the age of materialism. It all begins with Descrates beginning with a false dualism that has become a dogma of our modern age. If you ask me, it was Descartes who killed god.

In any case my point was that god is not a concept of the imagination but an ontological concept. It is an entity required to explain the fact of creation, the causing of suffering and the existence of consciousness. It as as valid as is “gravity” and “atoms” which are also ontological concepts and and required to explain things in experience.[/QUOTE]

No, there is evidence for gravity and atoms, that’s the difference. I thought you said you were Atheist, when did you change your mind?

#68

There is evidence for god as well. I am an atheist, as in I do not have a theistic interpretation of god. I have an ontological interpretation of god as the absolute reality that underlies all of existence that is of the nature of pure consciousness, love and truth.
This is the general Hindu view.

#69

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38471]There is evidence for god as well. I am an atheist, as in I do not have a theistic interpretation of god. I have an ontological interpretation of god as the absolute reality that underlies all of existence that is of the nature of pure consciousness, love and truth.
This is the general Hindu view.[/QUOTE]

Wow, really?? Finally real evidence for God!! We can start teaching ‘the god theory’ now in science classes! Your going to be the most famous person in the world with your amazing discovery.

#70

Trust me, 100-200 years from you will be taught about god in science classes.

Evidences for god are many:

  1. Countless rational proofs e.g. arguments of prime mover, ontological proof
  2. QM and the proof that consciousness is prior to creation
  3. Phenomenological experience of mystics. Mystics in all traditions(Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Islam, Sikh, Coptic, Pagan, secular) have verified the existence of an ultimate spiritual reality.

There is as much proof as there is for atoms and gravity basically.

#71

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38474]Trust me, 100-200 years from you will be taught about god in science classes.

Evidences for god are many:

  1. Countless rational proofs e.g. arguments of prime mover, ontological proof
  2. QM and the proof that consciousness is prior to creation
  3. Phenomenological experience of mystics. Mystics in all traditions(Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Islam, Sikh, Coptic, Pagan, secular) have verified the existence of an ultimate spiritual reality.

There is as much proof as there is for atoms and gravity basically.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so if there is as much evidence for god as there is for gravity, why aren’t we teaching it in science, and why isn’t it splashed all over the media? Why do we, as you suggest, have to wait 100-200 years?

#72

You are mistaking social acceptance of science for science. The heliocentric model was not socially accepted, but it was true. Heavier-than-air flight was not socially accepted, but it was true. Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect was not socially accepted, but it was true.

At one point we were taught the world was flat. Everybody you talked to believe it. Did it make it true?

#73

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38479]You are mistaking social acceptance of science for science. The heliocentric model was not socially accepted, but it was true. Heavier-than-air flight was not socially accepted, but it was true. Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect was not socially accepted, but it was true.

At one point we were taught the world was flat. Everybody you talked to believe it. Did it make it true?[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but saying there is proof for god, is not like saying we once believed the earth was flat, it’s more like saying the creational account of the universe according to Genesis in the bible is scientifically accurate. You can’t just justify your false beliefs by saying, we once thought the earth was flat. Your just clutching at straws. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

#74

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38464]Many things you take for granted today were not taken for granted in the past.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, that it was important to do researches, getting knowledge. Generally we think the same, i guess.
Main thing which i mean is that we are slowing ourselves down widening, not getting deeper.
We already got what we need to move on, but reanalyzing again and again. (familiar with that?)
You can become a yogi either in one life or during a thousands of incarnations.

#75

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38480]Nice try, but saying there is proof for god, is not like saying we once believed the earth was flat, it’s more like saying the creational account of the universe according to Genesis in the bible is scientifically accurate. You can’t just justify your false beliefs by saying, we once thought the earth was flat. Your just clutching at straws. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue.[/QUOTE]

No it is not like saying the creation account of the universe in the Genesis is true. That is mythology. You need to realise that god is not just the subject of religion, it is the also the subject of philosophy and science. The interpretation of god in religion and the interpretation of god in philosophy and science is different.

There is justification for a higher spirituality reality in the universe in both science and philosophy.

#76

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38485]There is justification for a higher spirituality reality in the universe in both science and philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I agree, pre-Darwin Science and pre-Descartes philosophy.

#77

[QUOTE=Sasha;38483]I agree, that it was important to do researches, getting knowledge. Generally we think the same, i guess.
Main thing which i mean is that we are slowing ourselves down widening, not getting deeper.
We already got what we need to move on, but reanalyzing again and again. (familiar with that?)
You can become a yogi either in one life or during a thousands of incarnations.[/QUOTE]

I agree we should move onto practice. I am all for that, and even my own mindset is shifting to that now, as I grow tired of the theory. However, I think it is just as important to understand the theory first, before one jumps into the practice.

The theory gives you a thorough understanding and control of the practice. I know many people don’t like theory and prefer practice, but it is necessary. In Yoga theory is also important to give you conviction. I have no doubts in my mind, for instance, meditation works. Not a single doubt. I know that if I practice, practice and practice I will get the results.

#78

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38487]I agree, pre-Darwin Science and pre-Descartes philosophy.[/QUOTE]

No my dear, even in post-Darwin and Post-Descartes philosophy. Any objective person can collate the evidence

  1. Modern studies into consciousness studies, OBE and NDE
  2. Modern studies into reincarnation
  3. Modern studies into parapsychology
  4. Quantum Mechanics and the proof of the a priority of consciousness and the non-existence of objective reality
  5. Neurology, neurophilosophy and the hard problem of consciousness

Any objective person can see there is more than enough evidence to show that there a higher spirituality reality in this universe.

Science and philosophy evolved beyond Descartes and Darwin a long time ago. Perhaps it would be wise to move into the current age?

#79

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38489]No my dear, [/QUOTE]

Alright, I have nothing against gay people, just don’t call me dear.

#80

Do you think that we have attained all that we can be?

Would you like to heal those who are suffering?
Would you like to know the thoughts of others in an instant and they yours?
Would you like to always make the right decisions?
Would you like to travel anywhere in the universe in an instant?
Would you like to go to the other dimensions that are unknown to the masses?
Would you like to cure yourself of illness?
Would you like to love all around you with sincerity?
Would you like to see all your previous lives?
Would you like to wake up everyday with warmth, love, laughter and contentment?
Would you?