Selfishness is a virtue

Spirituality
#141

Statements that support the oneness of the individual soul with the supreme soul, and statements that support their difference. Both have to be taken as they are, don’t reject either of them. This is the philosophy of acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva—simultaneous oneness and difference. Sometimes atma or self in the scriptures refers to the finite individual self and sometimes to the infinite supreme self. Without proper guidance you will always be confused about these statements.

yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha-deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakasante mahatmanah

“Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith (or devotion) in both the Lord (deve) and the spiritual master (gurau) are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.” (Svetasvatara Upanisad 3.8 )

I am not going to talk about this again. I have clearly already demonstrated that the Upanishad you selected that passage from is talking about devotion to the self. It very explicitly calls the self the lord and says we should devote ourselves to through meditation and become it.

You are glossing over an entire section of my post where I have spent time to show you how the Upanishad in question, and all the major 10 Upanishads in general very clearly teach the self is the lord. This is selective reading and it is dishonest, and frankly annoying and makes me reluctant to discuss further with you.

You have said that Patanjali doesn’t say that you need a teacher, but he does act as your teacher from the moment you consider following his advice. By the way, he also mentions the role of the guru in yoga sutras I.26:

purvesam api guruh kalenanavacchedat

“Isvara was also the teacher (guruh) of the ancients, because he is not limited by time.”

Patanjali very clearly says that Ishvara is the guru of all, he says nothing about the need for somebody to find a human guru, prostate to them and worship them. Patanjali makes it clear that anybody who practices the path of Kriya Yoga Patanjali describes is going to become liberated. He says nothing about the worship of Krishna and winning his grace or the worship of some human authority.

Patanjali does not support Vaishnavist theology. Vaishnavist theology is a mediveval invention who Patanjali writing almost a millenia before was not aware of. He would probably consider it as fraudulent(pretending to be Yoga) and stupid as I do.

#142

Btw, to make sure you I make it loud and clear what the Upanishad says, ive decided to make the font even bigger. You really cannot get away with glossing over this time

Svetasvatara Upanisad

I-15-16: As oil in sesame seeds, as butter in curds, as water in underground springs, as fire in wood, even so this Self is perceived in the self. He who, by means of truthfulness, self-control and concentration, looks again and again for this Self, which is all-pervading like butter contained in milk, and which is rooted in self-knowledge and meditation – he becomes that Supreme Brahman, the destroyer of ignorance. ()

1-6: In this infinite wheel of Brahman, in which everything lives and rests, the pilgrim soul is whirled about. Knowing the individual soul, hitherto regarded as separate, to be itself the Moving Force, and blessed by Him, it attains immortality.

I-7: This is expressly declared to be the Supreme Brahman. In that is the triad. It is the firm support, and it is the imperishable. Knowing the inner essence of this, the knowers of Veda become devoted to Brahman, merge themselves in It, and are released from birth.

Katha Upanishad

2-II-12. Eternal happiness belongs to the intelligent - not to others - who realize in their hearts Him who is one, the controller and the in-dwelling Self of all beings, and who makes the one form manifold.

2-II-13. Whoso among the intelligent realize the Self in the (inner space of the) heart as the eternal among the ephemeral, the consciousness among the conscious, who, though one, dispenses the desired objects to many, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others.

Praj?ānam brahma “Consciousness is Brahman” Aitareya Upanishad
Aham brahmāsmi “I am Brahman” Brihadaranyaka
Tat tvam asi “That Thou art” Chandogya
Ayamātmā brahmā “This Atman is Brahman” Mandukya

Very clear as day light. How can you even pretend the Upanishads are supporting the worship of one separate and eternal infinite god you call Krishna? The Upanishads teach, as shown you here clearly the self is the infinite and eternal being and it is not separate but in everybody as the indwelling self, and those who realize it through meditation come to know it. This is what self-realization means.

The Upanishads do not at all support the worship rituals to the one true and only god Krishna. Krishna was not even around then.The Upanishads were strongly against ritual and worship, and this is why they are considered Utter-Mimassa and Vendanta(end of the ritual phase of the Vedas) They developed from the philosophical speculations of the Vedic people in the later phase.

#143

Many gods and goddesses.
Only one eternal God.
Does God have a personality?
Or is personality simply the play of identification?
are not the"gods and goddesses" simply “defined” personalities.
You are a mirror. Choose the reflection. Or it will be chosen for you.

#144

Many gods and goddesses.
Only one eternal God.
Does God have a personality?
Or is personality simply the play of identification?
are not the"gods and goddesses" simply “defined” personalities.
You are a mirror. Choose the reflection. Or it will be chosen for you.

#145

Many gods and goddesses.
Only one eternal God.
Does God have a personality?
Or is personality simply the play of identification?
are not the"gods and goddesses" simply “defined” personalities.

Indeed, gods and goddesses are simply defined personalities, in human imagination. Krishna is masculine, all loving, gentle, calm, attractive, diplomatic, charismatic, the epitome of modern man, the perfect hero, loved by all women. Shiva is powerful, brave, renunciant, meditative, innocent, fearless, and masculine and feminine equally, the perfect character for acsetic. Kali is terrifying, fighting and feminine, the perfect feminist icon.

Allah is all powerful and all knowing and do whatever he likes. He is the the paragon of a tyrant, but for Muslims a benevolent tyrant, who will forgive all souls if they accept him.

The Christian god Yaweh is all loving and forgiving, an epitome of a father figure who loves all his children and gave his only begotten son as a sacrifice his bring back his rebellious children. The Christian god is rather puny and soft, powerless to stop Satan and to stop his children from doing wrong.

The Jewish god is sczhiophrenic, blood thirsty, jealous, demanding sacrifices and kills and smites down people left, right and center.

So tell me out of all these personalities which is the one true personality of god? If animals, elephants, dogs, cows, birds, worms were capable of imagination they would have their own imaginations of what god is like.

The fact remains that any personification of god is simply the fantasy of somebody. Any rational person can clearly see that none of these man-made images of god are valid and cannot be seriously entertained.

If there is any concept of god that is logically possible is only an impersonal one. This god is clearly impersonal because he is not partial to anybody, everybody is subject to the law of cause and effect(karma) and will reap exactly what they sow. This god allows misfortune, disappointing, tragedy and disaster to take place in the form of wars, injustice, violence. This god said or did nothing when innocent women were being branded witches and burned at the stake, when the Jews were being exterminated because they were considered sub-human, when the Native Americans were virtually wiped out by the Europeans, when India was invaded, pillaged and looted by invaders, despite India being the most god-loving of countries in the world, having more temples per square mile than any other country in the world. This god clearly is completely indifferent to human suffering.

#146

Exactly my point the mirror that reflects eternity.
Well. Haha.
But all personalities are reflections.
The average human being lacks the ability to self define.
Thus you can self identity with an already existant personality.

Kali I know for sure. Has more defined personality than listed.
As does Jesus.
Etc.
see. If you are a mirror. The reflection becomes a playful thing. In this context, just don’t developed multiple personalities. Or more correctly, don’t loose control. Remain the impersonal mirror. Personality is temporary for it is always changing. Thus,it is the playground of control.

#147

[QUOTE=Aksara;76130]What a concept of God?

A sane person doesn’t degrade himself, what to speak of the Supreme Lord. God is never under the influence of illusion. It is the unwise soul that chooses to undergo the tribulations of birth, death, old age and disease.[/QUOTE]

Well, this is not yoga philosophy. In Yoga philosophy the soul always remains pure, it is only matter in the form of the body, mind, ego and intellect that undergoes birth, death, old age and disease. The soul can never be tainted by matter. It is always beyond matter.

What I find ironic is your scriptures say what I am telling you: The Upanishads constantly tell you you are identical to the supreme Brahman and enjoin you to meditate it and realize it; Even the Gita says your soul can never be tainted by matter. You never actually take birth, so you never die. You cannot be affected by matter.

Why are you opposing your own very own most ancient scriptures for some medieval theology? Perhaps you simply cannot accept their message that you are actually divine and pure and identical to god. In which case stop pretending to be their adherent. You are not an adherent of the Veda, if you oppose their teachings. The teaching that we are not divine and identical to god is Abrahamic, you would fit more into a Muslim, Jewish and Christian religion. You certainly sound like one in your language like ‘faith’ and ‘one true god’ In fact the Dvaitists came very close to Abrahamic theology, they even formulated their own doctrines of eternal damnation. I realized just how much Hindus today have come away from the original Veda, that I have decided to disown the the title of Hindu, though technically as an adherent of the Veda I am Hindu.

You also really need to get over this ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ approach you have to the world. If the Supreme lord exists everywhere, to put it crudely he exists also in Hitler, in a piece of excrement, in a prostitute. You’re only partial to the expressions of the lord that you consider sacred, but ignore that which you consider profane. The fact of the matter in actual reality what you consider profane does exist, disaster, tragedy, disappointment destruction take place all the time in all forms from war, injustice, famine to natural disasters and the supreme lord allows it. This is the single biggest proof that the supreme lord is indifferent to it all.

#148

By the way we may continue our conversation on the Upanishads and its interpretations in the new thread I started. There I have made it very clearly, by citing the Upanishads directly that they do indeed assert the identity of the self and god and enjoin meditation to realize this(self-realization). So citing from the Upanishads is not going to help your case, because they contradict it. It does remain a curious point though if you are not supporting the teachings of the Veda, then can you really call yourself Hindu? Isn’t Hinduism suppose to be the religion of the Vedas?

I also want to take up with you an obvious contradiction I find in your post. You said that the soul is not the body, but most of what you say about why we cannot be god clearly show you identify the soul with the body. For instance:

It is the unwise soul that chooses to undergo the tribulations of birth, death, old age and disease.

Here you are directly identifying the soul with the body which undergoes birth, death, old age and disease. Earlier you said the soul gets ill, again showing you identify the soul with the body.

I can clearly see that you are confused about the relationship between the soul and the body.

There are various levels of indentifications one makes with the body:

Identification with the physical body: This is the position of materialists and most atheists, by identifying themselves with their physical body, they conclude that the death of the physical body is the death of themselves. It is a contradiction for one who is identified with the physical body to think they can survive beyond its death

Identification with the subtle body: This is the position of dualists and most Hindu theists, by identifying themselves with the subtle body they see themselves as the living entity that transmigrates from body to body according to its karma(merit or demerit: sin or virtue)

Identification with the causal body: This is the position of nihilists and most Buddhists, by identifying themselves with the substratum, they see themselves as non-existent entities(anatman) as mere processes of nature.

Vedanta teaches that all identifications with the body are false, which is proven through self inquiry and negation of everything that we are not(not this, not that) We see through analysis by analysing all modes of our experience(waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep) and all vehicles through which we experience the modes(physical, gross and causal body) that we are not either of these. Rather we are the being that is present in all these experiences, hence Sat. We are the consciousness that is aware of all experiences, hence Chit. We are that bliss(the absence of all desire, pain and pleasure) that is present in dreamless sleep, hence ananda. Thus we are sat-chit-ananda.

When the knowledge dawns on you that you are simply the witness of all reality, then your relationship to things in reality changes. The witness cannot be affected by anything in reality in the form of pain or pleasure, praise or censure, profit or loss, because the witness knows that all of this actually does not belong to it, much like a spectator watching a film on screen realizes that none of what takes place on the screen belongs to the spectator. The wise thus see reality as illusory, none of it is actually real, it just a mere projection.

To begin the first few steps to self-realization, remind yourself again and again you are the witness. Affirm it and repeat it over and over. Nothing can affect you, when you have doubtless conviction(call it faith if you want) in this fact. Then watch how magically your view of and attitude towards reality, viz your relationship with everything begins to change.

#149

Blind faith is useless. Faith in God should not be of this kind. Faith in God is reasonable and the devotee needs to perfectly know what he is doing and why. Bhakti-yoga is the science of God-realization. Whoever seriously attempts to practice it enters into an active exchange with God. He or she personally experiences God and does not depend on speculations whether God exists or not.
Vaisnavism is not a new thing actually, it is eternal. As the Supreme Personality of Godhead Visnu is eternal, so also his devotee, the Vaisnava is eternal. Visnu denotes the Supreme Lord. He may be known by different names in different traditions.
As the soul is unchangeable it remains, in one sense, unaffected by material nature. It is just like when someone is dreaming. You may experience horrible things. A tiger is coming and you are full of fear. And you actually manifest all the symptoms of that fear, because you take it for real. But unless you wake up you cannot get out of that (imaginary) situation. The conditioned soul is in a state of deep sleep and only a person who is awake himself can wake him up. That is the role of the guru.

#150

Vaisnavism is not a new thing actually, it is eternal. As the Supreme Personality of Godhead Visnu is eternal, so also his devotee, the Vaisnava is eternal. Visnu denotes the Supreme Lord. He may be known by different names in different traditions.

Vaishnavism is of course not an eternal religion, as it is a well known it is a man-made religion that came into existence around around 500BCE or 1AD.

That there is a supreme personality of god is a belief
That the are eternal souls separately who eternally worship him is also a belief

The third point that different traditions have different names for him is ignorant of the fact that different traditions have different concepts of god(Saguna Brahman) Nobodies Saguna Brahman is identical. The character of Allah is different to the character of Yawesh, different to the character of the Christian fathergod.

As the soul is unchangeable it remains, in one sense, unaffected by material nature. It is just like when someone is dreaming. You may experience horrible things. A tiger is coming and you are full of fear. And you actually manifest all the symptoms of that fear, because you take it for real. But unless you wake up you cannot get out of that (imaginary) situation.

Yes, that we can actually agree on, but only partially. The part of us which experiences fear, pain and pleasure is not the soul, but it is the soul through the prism of the buddhi. The proof of this is that the buddhi aspect of us which experiences fear, pain and pleasure is absent in deep sleep, but the witnessing consciousness is still present even in deep sleep. Thus proving that the witnessing consciousness itself does not itself experience any fear, pain and pleasure.

The conditioned soul is in a state of deep sleep and only a person who is awake himself can wake him up. That is the role of the guru.

Patanjali does not say this. I would sooner listen to Patanjali than listen to you. If one thinks about it logically there has to be somebody whose done it without a guru, otherwise we have an infinite regress. This means it is perfectly possible to attain self-realization without a guru. I think you need to examine the historical context: in those times the divine knowledge was not freely available in mass produced books and on the internet. In order to get access to this knowledge one had to be granted access to it by a guardian of that knowledge(a guru) and it was given only after the student was tested and considered worthy of it. This is why a guru was necessary in those times. In modern times a guru is a luxury, great if you have one, but if you don’t, don’t worry, let the books of the gurus guide you.

#151

The system of guruparampara is explained in the Bhagavad-gita:

evam parampara-praptam
imam rajarsayo viduh
sa kaleneha mahata
yogo nastah parantapa

?This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.? (BG 4.2)

sa evayam maya te 'dya
yogah proktah puratanah
bhakto 'si me sakha ceti
rahasyam hy etad uttamam

?That very ancient science of yoga is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science.? (BG 4.3)

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanah srjamy aham

?Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion ? at that time I descend Myself.? (BG 4.7)

Sometimes the chain of disciplic succession breaks and there are deviations from the real path. The Lord always makes sure that the correct knowledge is available for those who are sincere and not envious of him. There are many cheaters who claim to be gurus and there is also a lot of philosophical speculation about the right path. However, the Lord is situated in the heart of everyone and understands the particular mentality and attitude of the individual soul.

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto
mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

?I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.? (BG 15.15)

#152

The system of guruparampara is explained in the Bhagavad-gita:

evam parampara-praptam
imam rajarsayo viduh
sa kaleneha mahata
yogo nastah parantapa

“This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.” (BG 4.2)

Nothing really pathbreaking here. It is well known that in the past knowledge was passed down from generation to generation by guardians of that knowledge. Today, we are living in the 21st century where practically every book is at our fingertips. The spiritual knowledge of every tradition on the planet is today widely available, and anybody who has an interest can access it.

I do not really need a guru to learn Vedanta and Yoga.

“I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” (BG 15.15)

Krishna it speaking from the perspective of a self-realized soul(jiva) Just as the Risis proclaim “I am Brahman” Krishna too proclaims the same. Krishna too had to get instructed in this knowledge like anybody else. Krishna had a guru.

#153

It is the knowledge that is important. The guru simply taught in which way to " see/perceived “the knowledge” one man sees breathing as something he has always done,another man understands breathing and how it works,and yet another man understands how to use it. Bring the 3 men together. :).

A man with all the knowledge in the world,may not know see how be can use it.

A man can look at the world in awe, for he knows that even the trees hold great depth and can lead to great understanding.
The world is an infinite parable for the heart.

But what I see in these words. Others may not see. This is why it is a woe that man is divided.
All religion should be able to be seperate. And still be in harmony.
I say man is not selfish in the right way.
Even the Bible says you cannot bring anyone to God, only God can bring a man to him.

The man of God and that man trying to become God,should both be able to talk in peace openly.
Right and wrong. A man wants to be right. That’s the problem. We all want to be right. No one wants to be wrong. Wrong is like poison to the mind and heart. Who can make the wrong right then? :stuck_out_tongue:

#154

All religions cannot be in harmony, because each religion claims to be the truth and each religions truths contradict one another. For example the Abrahamic religions teach about resurrection, judgement and that we only have one life, but the Dharmic religions teach about reincarnation, samsara and karma. Still another religion Atheism teaches that we cease to exist. They all cannot be true. One of these versions is going to be correct and the others are going to be incorrect.

Religion is the attempt of humans to understand reality. Some religions have a far more rational and scientific understanding than others. Dharmic religions for instance have accumulated the best knowledge on reality through thousand of years of philosophical contemplation, analysis and meditation. It is the Dharmic viewpoint that finds favour in modern science, not the Abrahamic one. They are the best human attempt to understand reality. The Abrahamic religions are a primitive attempt. It is for this reason why the Dharmic religions are more favour in modern times.

The reason that humans want to be right is ingrained in us, because we all want to know the truth. Humans naturally oppose ignorance. We all have a natural curiosity for knowledge, to want to learn, to know our mistakes and imperfections and improve upon it. Therefore, never throw away your faculty of discernment that wants to know right from wrong, without it you are a savage. The aim of Yoga is to refine the instrument of discernment(viveka) and sharpen it like a razor so that it can discriminate the most subtlest of falisities and imperfections and discard it, in the same way a swan can discriminate the water from milk and discard it.

There cannot be peace between a man of god and a man trying to become god, because the truths each hold are contradictory and offensive to one another. To a man of god, it is offensive for anybody to claim they are god, so offensive that historically in some places in the world it has lead to the death penalty. Similarly, to a man becoming god, it is primitive, laughable and ridiculous to see his fellow humans worship what really is just their own beingness, something they could all realize and unlock within them divinity if they made efforts in that direction, rather than superstitiously worshipping a cow or a tree.

There is a great analogy in Vedanta to describe the men who worship things other than their self, they are like beggars sitting on a chest containing infinite treasure and they beg all their life for crumbs, without realizing that they sit on an infinite treasure, if only they made an attempt to open it and look inside. Truly, to one who knows about this infinite treasure, such men are undoubtedly fools. In the same way one who worships anything other than their self is a fool.

You contain within yourself everything that you are seeking in the world: joy, knowledge, truth, wisdom, love, power, fame, beauty, perfection. It is all in you. Look inside.

#155

We argue ideas as if we posses them.
When in reality, it is the ideas that posses us.

A man of Abrahamic beliefs who is not possessed but possesses, can peacefully converse with a man who wants to be God. If the man who wants to be God,is not possessed by the idea,but possesses it. Then it is simply two men throwing around thoughts peacefully. For the beliefs and thoughts may differ, but both recognize eachother as men.
I personally can talk to anyone, for I see people as seperate from their thoughts and beliefs, for thoughts and beliefs were not always their,and may not always be. Thus it is seperate from them. :wink:

Man is divided due to unclarity. “Delusion” of course, these are just my current thoughts and beliefs, and althout our thoughts and beliefs differ, we have conversed in peace so far havnt we Surya? :stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile:

#156

Sure, it is possible to two people with different beliefs/worldviews to have a discussion, but I don’t understand what is the ultimate point you are trying to make?

The point I was making in my previous post that somebody ultimately has to be right and somebody ultimately has to be wrong. We cannot all be right. I take the position that the Dharmic religion as expressed and enunciated in Vedanta is the most truest description of reality known to humanity, and the Abahamic religion especially as expressed in the orthodox form of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is among the most false of descriptions of reality known to humanity. In fact they are rather insulting to ones intelligence.

Notice, I am pretty unrelenting even within the Dharmic religions, weeding out of the theistic interpretations within it in the Puranic forms with the same impunity I serve the Abrahamic religions. In general any religion that teaches worship of some god is foolish, primitive and superstitious, and useless in delivering humans from suffering. Alternatively, any religion that teaches us to cultivate self-knowledge, to contemplate and reason on reality and being is enlightened and useful to humans to end their suffering.

#157

Knowledge is just that. Right and wrong.but can we really “know” through words? Or does it take direct experiance to “know”

One man beliefs in rocks.
One man believes in cultivation of himself.
Another man believes in the lord.
They all arrive to the same destination.
What brought them their was not belief, but what they came to know.

The man worshipping the lord may "know"
and the man cultivating himself may never know.
And the man worshipping rocks may have always knew,and just worships rocks cause he thinks its funny.
Thought is a funny thing. My point is,although I agree with you and how you perceive things analytically. As I too am analytical. At the same time I disagree. Because I know, that knowing is direct experiance. And direct experiance is seperate from belief. Belief is an attempt to understand experiance. :stuck_out_tongue:

#158

Can we know through words? Interesting question. I got an interesting answer when I asked a Vedanta expert in India. He gave the analogy of a joke. A joke is basically a set of statements with a punchline. In his story he tells of how a joke told by his guru he did not really get, while the other were laughing out loud. The next morning while showering, he remembered the joke and all of a sudden he got it, and he laughed out loud. This is an example of getting knowledge through words.

There is another very famous example of this kind of dawning of knowledge through words. The story of the group of 10 men who cross a river, but on getting to the other side the group leader counts the number of men 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and says one is missing! He is miserable and distraught, thinking that one of them has drowned! A sage passing by says nobody is missing. The group leader counts again 1, ,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and again proclaims “Somebody is missing” At this point the sage tells him, “You are the 10th man” and all of a sudden the leader experiences a sudden enlightenment, “Yes, I am he!” and all his worries and fears disappear like a phantom.
We are like the group leader in the story, thinking that something is missing and looking for it in gods, materials, relationships and concepts, not realizing that we are what we seek. This knowledge comes to us in an instant when we understand through words that we are it.

This is why Vedanta is considered shabd jnana, word knowledge. Words have a special power which is self-revealing, provided the right conditions are created and the mind is a right state to receive those words. In the Upanishads, some merely on hearing the words “Thou art that” become enlightened in an instant, but that is because their mind is already pure enough to receive this knowledge. Not everybody who inquires “Who am I” like Ramana Maharishi will attain enlightenment(if that were true, all of his followers would have been as enlightened as him) but his mind was pure enough due to many lifetimes of purification to respond to the inquiry. Hence, to attain knowledge through words, also requires one goes through the preliminary training of purification, and this includes the practices of contemplation and meditation on the knowledge, using ones instrument of intellect.

I disagree that worshipping god, worshipping a stone and worshipping ones own self is equivalent to one another. If one worships a fictitious thing, like the flying spaghetti monster, then begins with a false foundation. How can beginning with a false foundation lead to a true conclusion? If the premises are wrong, the conclusion also has to be wrong. If worshipping god could lead to enlightenment, then billions on this planet would be enlightened, because that is what they have been doing for centuries. On the contrary, this kind of practice has lead to wars, oppression, intolerance and violence. This kind of practice actually leads one to hallucination. As we can see in cases of stigmata where devout Christians begin to experience the wounds of Christ, because their mind begins to assume exactly the object they are worshipping.

On the other hand self-knowledge is based on an actual understanding of what we are really worshipping and why we are worshipping, the answer being that we are really worshipping our own nature that we are unconscious of, and subconsciously mistake it to be outside of us in the objects around us, in rocks, in society and people. Thus one begins with a valid premise and can then be lead to a valid conclusion. This is a rational way and can lead to real and true understanding and ultimately enlightenment. If we go the way of faith we can never achieve true understanding and enlightenment, but rather we immerse ourselves into delusions. It is difficult for one who has entered into faith into something to extricate oneself from it, the delusion can last an entire lifetime.

#159

In my personal opinion. Do what works. If its not working. Stop. R
Try it new or a different way.
Belief and carnal instinct is the reason for wars and oppression.

Maybe the man worships the rock. But it is how…HOW he worships the rock that determination suc the rock did nothing ;).
Worship. Is not bad. If used in the right way. He who understands its uses,can use it for his own purpose.

#160

The problem with the pick and mix type of spirituality where we choose different things to see what works is that we don’t really have all the time in the world to try out various tradition to see if they work. Each tradition requires a serious commitment of time, energy and effort and one does not see results straight away, but years, and in case of some traditions results can only be seen at the end of life. Therefore, it is much better to not dabble too much when looking for a spiritual path, and find a path based on proper logical thinking and understanding.

Logic allows one to know things without actually experiencing it. For example logic allows me to know that if I see smoke billowing from a hill, that there is a fire present without experiencing the fire. There are many things which I logically know, that I have never experienced, such as the existence of my subtle body, reincarnation etc. The truths of Vedanta is a logical knowledge, which allows one to know the absolute truths about reality without experiencing it. If one begins with the foundation of absolute truth, one can know with certainty what the correct path is. The correct path is realize the self through the purification of the intellect, though constant meditation and contemplation on the ultimate truth and the necessary purification acts we need to do through Yoga.