|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
 Posted - May 30 2007 : 12:13:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Yes I do agree. It's about having the right place for the right thing. Everything in its place. I would say dancing, singing, poetry and art all have their place and their out-of-place. Just like everything.
Boy, this thread wants to move around. :)
I agree with you completely. I adore fantasy, and you really do have to make a conscious effort in maintaining a focus on the right context, which is what you are talking about. For me, I have to keep a close eye on the part of me that wants to believe. Probably because it is my greatest asset, my imagination. I visualize with it, think in it, direct energy through it. It is like a magic wand that can cast a spell on itself.
To add to it, life is an unexplainable mystery no matter what, filled with things that attack our reason and sense of boundary. At left and right we learn of unbelievable things. Our imagination is like holding a mirror up to this unbelievable reality that is truth. It just creates an endless cascade of possibilities and mirrored illusions.
This thread is like the truth, all over the place. |
Edited by - Kyman on May 30 2007 12:33:13 AM |
 |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 12:43:26 AM
|
A rational thinking process, or human mind, is a good tool.
Is ego being equated with rational mind here?
I look at the state of the world and I see evidence of both, but I don't think they are the same thing. In fact I think they often conflict.
Actually I think ego, if viewed as an expression of a separate self claiming a position of importance; creating heiarchies of personalities and claiming self-importance and ownership of things, ideas and even other beings, can be a very irrational expression.
Take for instance the battles that go on for presteige and dominance between many scientists as they position themselves over theories and influence and etc. That kind of ego energy can actually stimey the natural flow of the expression and exchange of rational thought. |
Edited by - Balance on May 30 2007 12:54:42 AM |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 01:01:23 AM
|
Is ego being equated with rational mind here?
Hi Balance,
In my previous post I did not equate ego with the rational mind.
I also see the rational mind as a useful tool. And I see the ego like you describe it in your post, and I also think the ego can be very irrational.  |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 01:45:01 AM
|
Hello weaver.
I'm sorry, I wasn't refering to anyone in particular, I meant the general thread. Your thoughts and mine were along the same vein.
I think our ideas have a lot of potential to be the dominating theory in this field. Why, if we teamed together and watched each-others backs we could blow the competition out of the water! We could make huge names for ourselves! Just think of the fame and fortune and statues erected in our honor. Of course, you have to agree with the obvious, my name will come first as I am clearly the creator of the finer points of my, I mean our theory. (ego clowns, they're quite dangerous!) |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 01:57:28 AM
|
LOL!
I'd prefer enlightenment with the risk of being seen as irrational by the rational mind!  |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 02:22:18 AM
|
"You are not creating thoughts. They happen spontaneously. Then we say “I am thinking”, “I am deciding”, “I am remembering”. This is totally false. That “I” is not present in those things. It is only assumed afterwards. This assumed “I” is the ego, and it is the cause of our problems. There has never been an ego, except as an assumption."
-John Wheeler |
|
|
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 02:31:00 AM
|
| I think that EGO is that part of you that reacts on the fly. It is part of your hidden agenda. It is what makes you feel safe and secure; possibly at the expense of others. The EGO wants to be right, or at least make others believe that it is right. When you become enlightened you realize that none of that matters, so you simply be. You participate in life's activities but your attachment to the outcome is no more. |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 03:05:31 AM
|
What is rational? The judgement of what is rational in a given moment is related to what is known as facts. There is a filter that decides what the mind judges as "rational". Rationality is subjective and is constantly changing according to circumstances. The filter is our gathered knowledge and experience, feelings, will etc. Conscious and unconscious assumptions about reality decides what is judged as rational. Rationality is an illusion. Created by the ego.
(All above is only my personal opinions even though it is expressed as "This is how it is". My expressive style is "IMHO" shortened even more, because I trust you understand it is only my personal share to the discussion!) |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 07:45:07 AM
|
balance wrote:
"Take for instance the battles that go on for presteige and dominance between many scientists as they position themselves over theories and influence and etc. That kind of ego energy can actually stimey the natural flow of the expression and exchange of rational thought."
Not only that, but this is NOT TRUE SCIENCE. This is spin, created by media with an agenda, with "scientists" tagging along.
Balance, from Wheeler quote:
""You are not creating thoughts. They happen spontaneously. Then we say “I am thinking”, “I am deciding”, “I am remembering”. This is totally false."
This may be true, but it still seems to me that I use my freedom of choice to create intent and my point of perception to watch it happen. |
Edited by - Etherfish on May 30 2007 07:46:46 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 11:53:56 AM
|
Weaver said:
Enlightenment takes the conscious awareness beyond the rational mind. It's a higher state of consciousness.
That's the bit where I say 'I don't think so', all the Yogis drop everything and look up, and you can hear a pin drop. LOL. The word 'higher'.
And herein, Weaver, I am taking on 'ourselves' as Yogis, and not you, or the post you wrote.
Sometimes things are so close to us that we can't see them. The presumption that the yogic/enlightened states are 'higher' than non-yogic states is all-over-the-place in the yoga culture. It's a cultural hubris that we carry with us everywhere. Brought to us in the West by our friends the Yogic missionaries of the 20th century, and swallowed whole by us.
Yoga can be a great dimension of beauty, joy and perfection. But if we start thinking that our yogic states or enlightenment put us (or even our master Yogis) automatically in 'higher' states than other people, we need our collective butt kicked. And we will be better yogis for getting the message.
It's natural (and in many ways good) to have great reverence for people who excel in an endeavor we are pursuing. So, for example, if we are doing Karate, we can have great admiration for the black-belt. While we are in the Karate studio, it's fine to think him or her one of the greatest beings, at a higher level of consciousness than others. But when we leave the studio, we have to stop thinking that Master is at a higher level of consciousness than everyone else. He isn't.
The truth is in these three:
(i )He's special in some ways, ahead of some people in some ways,
(ii) but in others, he's behind other people
(iii) please re-read (ii) again and again because you (and maybe Master) are always glossing over it for some reason
It's time we Yogis came down from our high Yoga-horses. Not just as people, but as a culture. It's time Yoga became more humble.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 30 2007 11:56:08 AM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 12:12:28 PM
|
emc said: "Rationality is an illusion. Created by the ego."
That's probably a very rational assumption.
Letting all things flow unhindered by any grasping, or illusion of control is probably a very rational non-action. Watching the body and mind operate within this unimpeded flow might be seen as rational. The wisdom that is the ordered operation of this manifested universe might be seen as the mother of rationality. Acting as an individual expression within that natural flow might be seen as using proper reason.
Ether wrote:
````````````````````````````
"Balance, from Wheeler quote:
""You are not creating thoughts. They happen spontaneously. Then we say “I am thinking”, “I am deciding”, “I am remembering”. This is totally false."
This may be true, but it still seems to me that I use my freedom of choice to create intent and my point of perception to watch it happen."
``````````````````````````````
I think Wheeler is basing his words on his experience of seeing it to be an illusion that there is a separate self doing anything. He is presumably speaking from what some might call unified consciousness. |
Edited by - Balance on May 30 2007 12:17:03 PM |
|
|
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 12:18:24 AM
|
Weaver said:
Enlightenment takes the conscious awareness beyond the rational mind. It's a higher state of consciousness.
David replies: That's the bit where I say 'I don't think so', all the Yogis drop everything and look up, and you can hear a pin drop. LOL. The word 'higher'.
And herein, Weaver, I am taking on 'ourselves' as Yogis, and not you, or the post you wrote.
Sometimes things are so close to us that we can't see them. The presumption that the yogic/enlightened states are 'higher' than non-yogic states is all-over-the-place in the yoga culture. It's a cultural hubris that we carry with us everywhere. Brought to us in the West by our friends the Yogic missionaries of the 20th century, and swallowed whole by us
The yogis of ancient lore were obviously in tap with a higher conciousness which resulted in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, intuitive understanding of the chakra system, pranic balance through tai chi, and pranayama, and a complete understanding of the nadis used in accupuncture.
The key is to get the prana to flow through sushumna where we obtain higher intuitional apprehension of higher truths.
Anyone who has had a glimpse of this knows it to be true.
With Peace,
Paul |
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 05:31:13 AM
|
| Integral Yoga could probably shed decent light on this subject. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 1:01:49 PM
|
Lucidinterval said:
The yogis of ancient lore were obviously in tap with a higher conciousness which resulted in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, intuitive understanding of the chakra system, pranic balance through tai chi, and pranayama, and a complete understanding of the nadis used in accupuncture.
For sure these people reached a higher level of attunement to their bodies. For sure they reached a high level of attunement of a certain kind. However, I believe the yoga culture inflates their stature as a result, and attaches over-blown magical interpretations to what are just ordinary (although interesting and special) phenomena.
Saying that they are at a 'higher level of consciousness' is too much. It assumes way, way, way too much. It's far too high, and unqualified, a pedestal on which to place these people.
Here's the root of the issue: is there tension between these two?
. Master is at a higher level of consciousness.
. Master is behind many other people in many significant ways.
Although the meaning of the first is somewhat ambiguous, I can say this much -- insofar as the first has a meaning which disallows the second, the first is untruthful, because the second is truthful.
The yogis of ancient lore were obviously in tap
Well, I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'll say this: It isn't obvious that the Yogis are at 'a higher level of consciousness' in the sense that it means that they were ahead of everyone else in every way -- or even disallows that they are behind many other people in significant ways. In other words, it's not obvious that they should be up on a big pedestal.
Let me turn it around, Paul: when you say they were at a higher level of consciousness, do you allow that they are behind many other people in significant ways?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 04 2007 1:15:55 PM |
|
|
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 7:19:27 PM
|
Sure, they probably sucked at basketball!  |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 8:34:37 PM
|
Well, that is the kind of reply I expected. There is the reluctance to take them down from the pedestal. It's easy to say that Master sucked at basketball, harder to say that Master
- Is not necessarily very wise in certain respects
- Is not always the best person to get advice from
- He is lacking cultural transcendence; he has a culturally-bound moral system which he believes universal; he may believe certain things 'bad' which are OK, and certain things OK which are 'bad'
- Has many illusions about himself, and may be weak in self-reflectiveness in many ways
- May give you parent-child advice when you are more in need of adult-to-adult advice
- Confounds his emotional certainty with cognitive certainty, and therefore feels very certain about things he is very much mistaken about
From such a person, you're actually getting something very particular, not an all-purpose expansion of consciousness. Yoga may have improved this person's emotional-relational systems (and not even perfected those), but hasn't done that much for cognitive development. So to say they are on a higher level of consciousness goes too far IMO. It's misleading, in a way thousands have been misled by many of the Yogic missionaries to the West of the 20th century.
Really, the proof that they are putting Master on the pedestal is in their reluctance to allow him placed on the floor like everyone else. The emotional discomfort with a realistic vision of the 'Master' is the proof, IMO, that the the meaning of 'is in a higher level of consciousness' is too strong for the words to be true.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 05 2007 09:50:50 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 10:36:33 PM
|
Some people may achieve a higher level of consciousness from time to time, in the sense that they often view the world as everyone will in the future, when we are all more evolved. They may see more the unity and peace between us.
I think the error is in seeing this as a static state, and calling them "master".
I don't think there is ever a state one reaches that is the ultimate, and they're done. At least not in this body, interacting in our normal world.
But since people think this "perfect" static state exists, they pick someone far enough ahead of themselves to impress them, and assume everything they do is right.
Unfortunately, they don't have any reason to pick the quiet guy who never mentions his advanced world view. They pick the guy with the ego who proclaims his superiority, but in a holy way.
IMHO, whomever would want to be in that position is probably not what he claims to be. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Jun 04 2007 10:37:34 PM |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2007 : 11:26:44 PM
|
Weaver said:
Enlightenment takes the conscious awareness beyond the rational mind. It's a higher state of consciousness.
The word 'higher' in this context can be seen with different meanings. It was not my intention to put people who have realised enlightenment on a pedestal. I also don't think it's correct to see 'enlightenment' as an absolute term. With this I mean that people (while still in a human body) can only realise enlightenment in various degrees and qualities, and not in an absolute sense. All people have the same value. I was talking about the consciousness itself.
There are some characteristics of the 'enlightened' consciousness that many agree on, for example: unconditional love (or outpouring divine love as Yogani has stated it), non-attachment to thoughts, emotions or things, identifying oneself with the totality of life, or God, with the consequence that there is no need to try to put oneself over others. It can also be called non-duality, or oneness of All, and it puts unity (between people) in favor over separateness.
In contrast we can see characteristics of a 'not-enlightened' consciousness, with characteristics like: being able to love only if being loved, attachment and identification with thoughts, emotions or things, identifying oneself as a being that is in essence (as far as our true nature is concerned) separate from other life, and who has to try to put down other life in order to display oneself as favorably as possible. This is the consciousness of duality, and it sees mainly separateness (between people) and overlooks unity.
There is a reason why people put value judgment on these and label them 'higher' vs. 'lower' by looking at what consequences each promotes: The 'enlightened' consciousness promotes better cooperation between human beings and less friction. For example, no wars would ever happen between people with this consciousness fully manifest. The 'not-enlightened' consciousness promotes friction between people. Therefore, many people tend to call the enlightened consciousness 'higher', and see it as 'to be more esteemed'. They may also label it higher because they see it as being of 'higher' vibration. Higher can also mean more subtle, indicating that in the material world, it's more obvious to see things as separate, and it takes a certain skill to see unity here. Or, 'higher' can mean 'seen from a higher vantage point', indicating that one in this consciousness sees life from a more all-encompassing point of view, which is in agreement with a view of unity. Even from a physical perspective, I think an astronaut once said, when seeing the earth from space, that he couldn't understand the trivialities people fight over when we live on such a beautiful planet.
My personal opinion is however, that we have to be careful about putting validity judgments into this. I think that the consciousness that a person may experience as 'unenlightened' is perfectly as valid as one who experiences an 'enlightened' consciousness. I think that everyone has chosen their consciousness over the long term, and we all have free will to do this, and we have to respect each other's free will.
Next, I do not think that any person has complete 'enlightened' consciousness, or that anyone is completely 'unenlightened'. Everyone has aspects of each, in different measures, and in different qualities. Some are enlightened in some ways and not in others. Everyone has aspects of enlightenment already manifest.
I prefer to view enlightenment as an aspect of our true nature, which has only been covered over in varying degrees by filters of personally developed conditions that promote the view of separation (between people as far as their true nature is concerned). These filters have also be called the ego (meaning egotistic tendencies, not meaning the core of the individuality), and have been developed by our own choosing. So, in essence everyone is already enlightened, but it may not be totally manifest outwardly.
|
Edited by - weaver on Jun 05 2007 01:58:17 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 09:45:04 AM
|
Well Weaver, I agree with all of that. I have no issues with it when it is put this way. In practice though, as a matter of language, when you say someone is on a higher level of consciousness, it's very strongly mythologizing. When people hear it, according to the way it tends to be interpreted, if they believe it, they have put the guy up on the pedestal in their minds.
In fact, in my own experience, 'he is on a higher level of consciousness' is even used to say 'You can't possibly be right in your disagreement with him'!!!! What is a stronger proof that someone is being put up on a pedestal with those words than that?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 05 2007 10:24:08 AM |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 10:42:18 AM
|
Hi David,
Yes, I agree completely with what you say as well about this. When we associate consciousness with specific persons then it tends to get tricky, because people (as a result of often tending to see differences and separation instead of unity) tend to put people on a pedestal if you say 'he is on a higher level of consciousness'. So, it may not be appropriate to use a statement like that, even if the reason is only because of how it may be likely to be interpreted. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 10:49:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Well Weaver, I agree with all of that. I have no issues with it when it is put this way. In practice though, as a matter of language, when you say someone is on a higher level of consciousness, it's very strongly mythologizing. When people hear it, according to the way it tends to be interpreted, if they believe it, they have put the guy up on the pedestal in their minds.
Hi David:
This issue is not limited to those who have made some spiritual progress. It happens in all walks of life. Someone puts in the effort to become good at something (anything), and they are automatically judged by a portion of society to be good at everything. It is part of the trappings of fame -- the myth. When taken to extreme, it has been called a "cartoon version" of the person in question. Completely unreal. Sometimes the person themself begins to believe the cartoon. It is an entanglement for all concerned -- part of the drama of life.
Okay, we know about that. Everyone has been warned, and warned again. It will still happen. That's life. The mincing of words will not change it, because it is human nature on both sides in the fame game.
This does not lessen the fact that spiritual progress is real. Abiding inner silence, ecstatic bliss and outpouring divine love are real. And we can all move steadily toward that condition if we apply known causes and effects.
Anyone can choose to move to the "higher" inner ground. The great spiritual icons serve as benchmarks for what is possible, and they are important for that, just as great athletes are important benchmarks for all who seek to excel in sports. It is the same in any field. Desire directed toward an ideal is the fuel of progress in all things -- it is the magic of bhakti. We all need our heroes. So let's not knock down the spiritual icons too much. If they lose their inspirational meaning, so will our own possibilities, and that serves no one.
Regarding "ego," it is only a word describing a condition of consciousness. Weaver's description of consciousness gradually shifting from separatness to unity depicts the journey very well. Ego does not dissolve, since it never existed as a real thing. What ego describes dissolves. That is, the perception of separateness.
So-called "strong ego" is an expression of strong vitality. It can be limited (separate) or spiritually expanded (unifying). When the latter is fully expressing, the concept of ego as separateness drops away, and the vitality is still there in the unity condition. So big ego becomes big unity.
Consciousness expresses according our inner purification and opening. Same consciousness, expanding view. Nothing is lost, except obstructions to our inner nature, and the experience of separateness and limitation. Goodbye separateness. Hello unity.
There is nothing to get rid of. Just open the door and let the inner light shine through. When that happens the words we have used to label previous limitations evaporate along with the conditions they described.
Let's meditate.  ...
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 3:04:35 PM
|
More thoughts on ego. Kinda half finished because I have to go and didn't read the entire thread. This whole ego thing is enough to drive a Yogi nuts. When I read one guys works awhile back and another guy's recently, I got the feeling from the both of them that I am the problem. (One of these guys like to refer to themselves in the third person as "the speaker" this and "the speaker" that. I think that is just guru speak and spirtiual sleight of hand to mask their own strong ego.) And that it is my destruction that is the solution to the problem. Well, whether I am a spiritual being with an ego or an ego that has a spirit, I do exist and what is the point of all this if there is nothing in it for me and the fruit of my spiritual labor is not to be had by me? What is the point of doing yoga practices if in the end, I don't get to enjoy the inner silence, the ecstatic conductivity and the outpouring divine love? If it is not for me then who is it for? (Of course, it is for all of us egos.) In fact, the whole goal of spiritual endeavour is to be attained by the destruction of myself, if I understand these guys correctly. But you know, wherever I go, there I am. I just don't seem to be able to shake myself. Darn. There I am again. Slippery as an eel. Its enough to make a yogi want to just shuck it all and go and steal some picnic baskets!
Well, it sounds like a bunch of spiritual mumbo jumbo to ME. I think the best thing is to say to heck all these guys who teach self negation and just be the best ego you can be and be a strong ego. Just be an ethical ego and don't cause yourself or others too much trouble. Do some things that benefits society and don't obsess about your own enlightenment and your own troubles. Just handle them and get on with it, pursue your goals and enjoy life. Simple common sense. Maybe not very enlightened but the best I can do for myself right now. I think I just have to change your operating basis and realize that I will obtain "enlightenment" in the now but that it will be some future now. There I go again, the mind made self, deriving its identity from the dead past and its salvation in the imaginary furture. Maybe someday my ego structure will suffer I massive collapse and it won't matter..... dare I say it?..... to me, anymore.
Of course, maybe I just didn't understand them correctly because of my ego, I mean me. Dang, there I am again.
Lucidinterval1: Sure, they probably sucked at basketball!
David Obsidian: Well, that is the kind of reply I expected. There is the reluctance to take them down from the pedestal. It's easy to say that Master sucked at basketball, harder to say that Master
Is not always the best person to get advice from
He is lacking cultural transcendence; he has a culturally-bound moral system which he believes universal; he may believe certain things 'bad' which are OK, and certain things OK which are 'bad'
Has many illusions about himself, and may be weak in self-reflectiveness in many ways
May give you parent-child advice when you are more in need of adult-to-adult advice
Confounds his emotional certainty with cognitive certainty, and therefore feels very certain about things he is very much mistaken about
This is funny. It reminds me of a college girl that I knew about 25 years ago who went to learn about holistic health from a guru at his ashram. And she said that he showed up to lead them on a jog in his robes and street shoes. Well, that totally invalidated him in her mind. "What can he know about holistic health if he doesn't even know about the correct type of shoes to wear when you run?" she said as she stood there in her Nikes. She really felt like she had had her time wasted. Then she went on to tell me about the Bruce Springstein concert she had been to the other nite. At the time, I had this guy up on the pedestal and still do tho to a lesser extent (can't help myself) but she was completely oblivous to all that type of spiritual thing. Well, I thought it was funny, anyways, but maybe you had to be there.
Cheers! |
Edited by - yogibear on Jun 05 2007 3:48:51 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 4:12:58 PM
|
Yogani said:
So let's not knock down the spiritual icons too much. If they lose their inspirational meaning, so will our own possibilities, and that serves no one.
OK, but I'm trying to have them de-cartooned, not knocked. 
That's true about pedestals going up everywhere, but the Yoga culture does put it's teachers up on more severe pedestals than most cultures I know of. I have some experience of Zen, and yes, there is some mythologizing going on there too, but it isn't nearly as extreme as in Yoga, and general Indian Guru-Spirituality as far as I can see. Not even close. I think there's a time and place for pointing it out, and 'Yoga, Science and Philosophy' is I think a good 'place' for it.
It's not necessarily fun and warm and fuzzy to hear it, but I think Yoga-Science and Philosophy is a good place for a cultural reality-check occasionally. Of course, no-one has to agree with what I'm saying. But I like to get these counter-cultural views out.
Yogibear, if I gave the impression that I think 'Master' is no good because of these things I say about him, I am being completely misunderstood. I mean to say Master is a human being, with limitations and the capacity to be mistaken about just about anything. Which is fine. I want such people to be seen in a mature way.
A corollary to the pedestal problem is that, when limits are seen in the Great One, they either have to be denied and rationalized away on the one hand, or, on the other, the Great One has to sent down the tubes and demoted to the Lousy Rotten One. It sounds like that's what your friend did (on a small scale) with that holistic health person -- one lousy limitation and he was instantly nothing. That's just the flip-side of mythologization! They are just two sides to one extremist coin in how people are to be viewed.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 05 2007 4:27:00 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 05 2007 : 7:57:43 PM
|
It is my theory that the most evolved spiritual people are likely to remain hidden. Like Mother Teresa. They chased her, but she didn't seek fame.
Now, if we could just find someone knowledgable about yoga practices, but not interested in fame. . . . |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2007 : 09:33:17 AM
|
Hi David:
I think history will record that a dozen or so great sages collectively turned the tide of understanding about human spiritual transformation in the west (and worldwide) during the 20th century. Most of them are dead now. All had their personal issues, and these will be duly noted.
In the end, it will be about what has been gained on balance, not what dark shadows might have lurked. Humanity needs the positive for its inspiration and future progress. It is up to us to make the most of the opportunities we have inherited. It's good science too.
All the best!
The guru is is you.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The Ego
