|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 06 2007 : 10:26:23 AM
|
I just briefly read this thread and have to say that it seems there is an argument about yogis having a higher state of consciousness. My question to this is, "did they not have a higher state of consciousness than ordinary persons?" Everyone is at a different level of evolution but surely a true yogi wouldn't say they have a higher state of consciousness than any other being because they have humility. If the disciples of such a yogi put that yogi on a pedestal then that just shows their ignorance. It is ok to worship the guru you have chosen in the sense that you show that guru devotion, but arguing with others that your guru is the best or superior is surely just immature understanding. On the other hand, worshipping a guru as if that guru is God incarnate is something i have a problem with. Any yogi or guru that condoned worship is, in my eyes, not a true yogi.
I've seen pictures of Swami Sivananda being fanned by disciples. To me, this is ridiculous. The swami should be fanning them! |
 |
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2007 : 10:48:28 AM
|
Maybe the confusion comes from the use of the word "higher" implying others are lower. We are all equals, made of the same stuff, the one being looking out through many different eyes, all of us experiencing life on the same screen of awareness.
Without much debate, it would likely be agreed upon that awareness has a more clear perception of reality through some eyes than it does others. For me, it is abundantly evident that some people are more clear than others in their perspective of reality. Byron Katie or Eckhart Tolle are unlikely to be fooled by a belief (thought) that says their happiness is bound to some future event or that they are merely a human body with a limited identity. They see reality more clearly than many of us who believe thoughts that lead to suffering or who see themselves in a finite physical way.
Are they better than us, no, they are us and just abundantly clear about that.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2007 : 1:19:02 PM
|
Anthem I think you layed it out pretty well there about levels.
In response to "Guru worshipping" it has been my personal experience being in the presence of the unconditional love emanating from a mahatma, or divine personage, that I was unable to come up with enough ideas to satiate my desire to return the expression of that love. The desire to serve God is overwhelming to devotees who experience such grace and they can be seen running around like little bees tending to a flower full of divine nectar. I have also witnessed the fawning over personages who in my opinion weren't direct conduits to Divine Self and the whole affair looked like ego posturing from both ends. That's not to say devotees of a true mahatma aren't caught up in ego posturing, but I don't witness an iota of such a thing from the mahatma. Those have been my observations and experiences.
 |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2007 : 1:50:27 PM
|
Yogani said:
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.
Yogani, if you think I am putting these people down, you are misunderstanding me entirely. I'm shooting for a balanced perspective of what they are.
Anthem said:
Maybe the confusion comes from the use of the word "higher" implying others are lower.
It isn't just that. I'm not a hierarcho-phobe (LOL) and it's not just about some implicit disrespect for the 'lower'. It's that saying that they are at a 'higher level of consciousness' at all suggests that they are higher in a general way, or higher in THE way. Which is misleading. They may be higher in 'a' way.
There are so many dimensions to mastery. People are growing in different ways. 'Evolution' (or the development of mastery) is more like a tree than like a ladder.
If I am to make an analogy in performance art, let's take, say, a legendary ballet dancer, such as Nabokov. Let's compare him to a Jazz legend such as Jelly Roll Norton. If you confine your perspective to ballet, it may make sense to state that Nabokov is at a higher level of consciousness than Norton. If you confine your perspective to Jazz, it may make sense to state that Norton is at a higher level of consciousness than Nabokov.
The truth is though that there is more than one dimension of mastery. This means more than one 'ladder'. Also meaning, more than one meaningful ladder, or more than one important ladder.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4369 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2007 : 1:07:28 PM
|
Hi David,
You are right, that people develop in many different ways, and develop skills in different areas. But these are skills, or talents. Someone could learn an instrument or become a great dancer, but this may or may not involve an evolution in their consciousness. It would be quite possible for someone to learn a skill even to a very high level without it necessarily involving a serious change in their perception of the world in any way. Essentially, they could be pretty much the same person afterwards, as they were before. The thing about Yoga is, it is all about the transformation of consciousness. The yoga (union), is the union of human consciousness with the divine consciousness. And divine consciousness is higher, than that which is the normal experience of us humans. So a yogi who has realized yoga (union with the divine consciousness) has a level of consciousness almost unimaginable to the average human and experiences the universe in a completely different way from the average human.
As I see it, in terms of human consciousness, there is only one ladder. Fear is at the bottom of it, and love is at the top. Everyone is situated at some point between fear and love. Everything else is just a tangent, and illusory. Eventually (or always) I believe, even fear is illusory. So even that one ladder, only ever had one rung. But we still have to climb it.
In the meantime, I don't think we should be too harsh in our criticism of others who have climbed the ladder before us. Just for starters, it is hard to judge another, if we don't know the depth of their consciousness, or the level (height) of their realization of reality. And secondly, criticizing spiritual teachers, ad nauseam, could put others off, who feel they have something to offer, but who would feel intimidated by such criticism.
Just some thoughts
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Jun 11 2007 07:47:02 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2007 : 2:23:10 PM
|
Jesus Christ, now there is a fully developed bhakti, karma and raja yogi and guru in every respect. "Thou shalt love the lord thy god...." "As you sow, so shall you reap" "thy will be done" "I and my father are one." How many of the modern day gurus measure up. How often does one such as Christ make himself known to the masses and subject himself to their.......? Alot of out pouring divine love there. If there are any such as him today they are probably hiding out in the Himalayas.
Of course, I could just be mythologizing him. But I like to think he was what he is portrayed to be in the bible. |
Edited by - yogibear on Jun 07 2007 2:35:21 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2007 : 4:50:59 PM
|
Christi, a tendancy to stay in 'love' or out of 'fear' is itself also just a skill or a talent, albeit an important one. What you have done up there is just to downplay every sort of development except the one you are favoring, and placed the one you are favoring at the top.
It's not the only important talent in terms of removing human suffering. ( Though it may be extremely important for the person who has it. )
As I see it, in terms of human consciousness, there is only one ladder. Fear is at the bottom of it, and love is at the top.
I personally disagree. Let me take an example to illustrate a point: let's take the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati,
Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. Supposedly a being of extremely high consciousness -- from the point-of-view of many yogis, in a 'higher state of consciousness'. Way up -- some would say at the top -- of the Yogic Ladder. He wouldn't give any non-Brahmins permission to teach Yoga. He wouldn't permit Maharishi to teach Yoga, because Maharishi wasn't a Brahmin.
What does it mean to say that this man was a the top (or even high up) on the only ladder there is in terms of human conciousness?
BTW, I don't think he was a bad man at all. I'm not hostile to him at all. It's pretty simple as far as I am concerned: if it is true that he was highly developed in some ways for his time, it is also true that he was not highly developed in some ways for his time.
It is totally possible to, with great love, and without fear, to prohibit non-brahmins from teaching Yoga. This doesn't mean that it is right. I'm saying though that if you are doing it in 1980, you're behind a lot of people in certain respects.
And some other people are highly-developed in certain ways for their time, and it isn't Yogic. Like the Ancient Greek philosophers who spoke out against slavery were way ahead of their time in a way that wasn't Yogic. These people were in some ways ahead in a 'human consciousness' sense. Just as the Shankaracharya, possibly high up on the Yogic ladder, was behind in other significant 'human consciousness' senses.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2007 : 10:43:04 PM
|
Ultimately it matters not what we think of where another might be as far as "spiritual levels" go. We will never know what another is experiencing. Those so-called levels have nothing to do with what our individual, personal experiences are. Whatever levels of consciousness they may occupy or not doesn't mean a hill of beans to our own individual paths. We can only know what we know, not what anyone else may know. It is important of course to be aware enough to not get duped, unless that's what we need to experience. Perhaps we might be in the classroom of "Duped 101". There are truly spiritual greats that by watching, listening, being in their presence we can learn from, and massive egos we can learn from by their examples...and everything in between. It depends on what we open ourselves to. Each one is a unique individual, a shining star in the divine sky. Some will help show us a way to understanding our own treasure of experience directly and with unconditional love, and others will lead us down not so rosy paths. In the end it is up to each of us to see where we will step, no-one else can make that discrimination. Maybe one good rule of thumb in choosing a teacher is to watch carefully how they occupy their pedastals (they do exist in classroom settings). Some pedastals are set up out of Love, and some are set up with selfish motives behind them. We eventually learn to discriminate and choose ideas on how to find our own way by the examples and pointings of others, but most importantly from observing our own experiences.
Just a few ideas
Peace
Alan |
Edited by - Balance on Jun 08 2007 02:23:56 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4369 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 07:29:49 AM
|
Hi David
quote:
Christi, a tendancy to stay in 'love' or out of 'fear' is itself also just a skill or a talent, albeit an important one. What you have done up there is just to downplay every sort of development except the one you are favoring, and placed the one you are favoring at the top.
I wouldn't agree. The only sense in which dance serves us at all, is the degree to which it brings us more into love. The only sense in which music serves us at all is the degree to which it brings us more into love. This is true for every aspect of our reality: childbearing, gardening, walking, science, work, sleep, relationships, sex, everything. If something does not bring us more into love then it serves no purpose or function. So everything, including all the illusory ladders, is an aspect of the one ladder which is the ladder of consciousness, flowing between fear and love. As I said, everything else is illusory. Not just less preferred by me, but illusory. As our consciousness rises (to higher levels  ) they are seen to have never existed.
quote:
I personally disagree. Let me take an example to illustrate a point: let's take the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati,
Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. Supposedly a being of extremely high consciousness -- from the point-of-view of many yogis, in a 'higher state of consciousness'. Way up -- some would say at the top -- of the Yogic Ladder. He wouldn't give any non-Brahmins permission to teach Yoga. He wouldn't permit Maharishi to teach Yoga, because Maharishi wasn't a Brahmin.
Someone does not become united with divine consciousness because they are considered by others to be a great Yogi. Yoga is ontological, not democratic. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (as the famous yogi JC said)
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 10:09:26 AM
|
Someone does not become united with divine consciousness because they are considered by others to be a great Yogi. Yoga is ontological, not democratic. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (as the famous yogi JC said)
Perhaps you are making the assumption, which I made at one time, that he was not a great Yogi because he was a caste-traditionalist. I no longer believe that. Yogic enlightenment is not as the siddha-tradition would lead us to believe. It's not an all-around increase in consciousness. The person who has it remains limited, often in ways that others are less limited.
If something does not bring us more into love then it serves no purpose or function. So everything, including all the illusory ladders
None of that actually directly stands against what I am saying. Whatever about that, people can, in a deep state of love, make choices or propagate rules which are bad for other people and the world. They really believe in what they are doing -- subjectively, their feelings are not necessarily different to what they would be if they are making good choices for people.
Anyone here had parents who ever did that?
So, my point here is that a deep state of love has its limits as a state of consciousness. We can lose sight of that. We're inclined to assume that the Swami was wrong-hearted in his caste-traditionalism. However, there is every chance that he was good-hearted but merely wrong-headed. To be at the receiving end of someone's good-hearted wrong-headedness is not necessarily less painful, or less life-limiting, than being subjected to someone's wrong-heartedness. In short wrong-headedness is often just a 'bad' in its effects than wrong-heartedness.
This is why I'd say we shouldn't be exclusively focused on yogic development alone, as if it is the only important thing. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that yogic development is not the only important kind of development for ourselves and the world around us.
I'm just writing to put a point across, not to convince any particular person, and I respect any disagreements you may have, Christi. I do appreciate any challenge though, because it forces me to make a good (or better) case for what I am saying.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jun 08 2007 10:37:43 AM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 10:51:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that yogic development is not the only important kind of development for ourselves and the world around us.
Amen to that -- stillness in action! Too often, yoga means separating these two, which is a contradiction.
It has also been called "emptiness dancing" by someone we know (Adyashanti). Whatever we choose to call it, the sage is as accountable for his or her actions in the world as anyone. More so, actually, because authority brings responsibility. Ultimately, we are all measured by our deeds, not by our so-called inner state, which is an abstraction. This point is often lost in the culture, in the philosophy, in the spiritual quest, and, of course, in the fame game.
The whole thing is way closer to home than most people think. Before and after, it is about "chop wood, carry water," and how well we do that from both the inner and outer perspective.
Somewhere in there, the thing we have called "ego" becomes much more, and that is the draw for all of us -- expansion of our consciousness and joy in everyday living.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 11:25:38 AM
|
Hi Christi,
You said:
So everything, including all the illusory ladders, is an aspect of the one ladder which is the ladder of consciousness, flowing between fear and love.
When fear is looked closely at, it can be seen to be love too, though sometimes manifesting in a misdirected way. Fear stems from love for the self, love for the self to avoid pain and suffering and it is this love that guides us home. So to me, love is the whole ladder from bottom to top.
A
|
|
|
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 2:34:01 PM
|
| All you need is love...da, da, da da da... |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2007 : 3:02:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lucidinterval1
All you need is love...da, da, da da da...
That's the best thing said yet. Thanks for that Paul! |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Jun 10 2007 : 9:05:40 PM
|
Hi David,
I think I understood you correctly. We have to look at Gurus objectively and completely, the good and the bad.
You can be an advanced yogi and still have some major ego problems. If the yogi is highly charismatic, than can cause problems for a lot of people.
What I found funny about this girl was the whole guru thing just wasn’t part of her universe. She was on a completely different wavelength. Like someone who goes to the health club for a yoga class and that is it.
Is a guru perfect? All knowing, all powerful? We measure the present day gurus with a perfection yardstick. I should probably modify that statement and say that I do. At least I used to. Maybe I still do. But I am less surprised now when they are not.
I can’t really be impressed because someone holds a position like Shankaracharya (even tho I still am). There is a difference between position power and personal power.
But have any of the gurus who have come to the west in the last century measured up? Not many if any that I am aware of.
Ramacharaka wrote that Christ was a rabble rouser, a religious renegade, a firebrand. He was a man on a mission. He was not a defender of the status quo, That is for sure. Yet his behavior was the expression of truth.
I think the only straight jacket that Christ wore was his perfected yama and niyama and performing his duties skillfully and selflessly. Being truth itself, perhaps it was more his union with the divine that was the cause this. I don’t see him ever being bound by any earthly convention. He was breaking them right and left.
Here are some guru yardsticks. Maybe you can think of some others that I haven’t.
How are his ethics? (where most gurus seem to fail)
How wise is he?
Compassion?
How much self control does he have?
How much charisma?
Any siddhis?
For me, I hold up the story of Christ as he is presented to us in the bible. To me, he was the perfect guru. He was fully enlightened. It is a good story at any rate.
He was totally ethical and always in control of the situation and himself.
His words and deeds always reflected a deep wisdom and understanding of the situation he found himself in and all its implications and significances.
He demonstrated an absolute superiority over all other human beings. He was a spiritual PHD walking amongst all us little kindergarteners.
He knew people more intimately than they knew themselves and displayed this in a way that awed them.
He knew his fate and played his part in the divine drama. He allowed the lesser mortals to have their way with him in the end for a higher divine purpose. His uncompromising devotion to truth was his apparent down fall.
He displayed full blown siddhis very gracefully. There was no way for any one to dispute his power. No clunkiness there.
Huge compassion.
Who in recorded history can compare with him? Some say he is the avatar of this age bringing the lesson that humanity has to master. Some say that he is their savior. Some say he is a prophet.
Is the new testament mythology a fair and balanced account of the life of Christ?
Using the Christ yardstick, none of the teachers around these days compare that I am aware of. They all fall short in some way. They may be further along than us but still have work to do. This one graduated middle school, this one high school and that one college. But no fully developed and enlightened PHDs.
Christ didn't just show siddhis. He showed the qualitites that all human beings cannot help but recognize as perfect character and wisdom in action. He had the total package developed to as high of a degree as anyone of us can imagine in the game of life.
He was not just the fulfiillment of the old testament prophecies; he was the walking embodiment of the fulfillment of the Yoga Sutras.
Like Bruce Lee who showed the same in the limited sphere of martial arts. There are many great martial artists but none had the total package necessary to do what Bruce Lee did.
Or Michael Jordan. Fundamentally sound. Technically perfect. Combined with talented athleticism and hard work within the sphere of basketball.
Christ’s perfected basics never faltered. He represented the total development and possibility of a human being, not just in a skill set in a limited field (which does result in more or less character development and inner purification although you wonder sometimes these days). Well, I guess you could consider the yamas and niyamas a skill set that result from inner purification caused by AYPs. He had the skill set of the total human being.
Christ, to me, was a completely developed and perfected human being who had reached the goal of yoga. In his own words, “I and my father are one.” He was a classic yogi and guru.
Maybe he resonates with so many because, consciously or unconsciously, we recognize the full expression of the good, the true and the beautiful that is potential in all of us and which we are all striving to unfold.
Right under everybody’s noses. As he said, “Having eyes, they see not.” And “Those who have ears to hear will hear.”
I wonder what it would be like for him today?
These days, when you see all these people putting a guru up on a pedestal like he is God or something and then you find out he is a sex fiend or a drug addict or whatever; well, it kinda bursts your bubble, you know what I mean?
Enlightenment is relative. Perfection is absolute.
They are not totally walking their talk. They are held to higher standard because that is what they are teaching. I am not putting them down as you were trying to make clear, David. Just including the rest of the story. Then there is no myth.
Maybe they should come with a disclaimer:
“These are my short comings...Keep them in mind. I make no claims of perfection. Don't put it on me.”
So, speaking for myself, I guess I have held modern gurus to this standard (I didn’t know any better being rather naive) and that is where I have been sorely disappointed and quite frankly, awfully confused sometimes. Now I understand a little better.
How do you reconcile these contradictory things? They are just partially enlightened.
A favorite saying: "Wherever you go you will find that people are all to human."
Well, as a friend put it to me once, “They all have their bugs.”
Quick, somebody call the exterminator!
Just some thoughts that were stimulated by the thread.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Jun 10 2007 11:18:38 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 11 2007 : 12:00:35 AM
|
I have a feeling the stories about Jesus are embellished and exaggerated quite a bit. So it's hard for any living guru to live up to such standards.
We make a couple mistakes when we're exposed to these gurus. One is by putting them on a pedestal, we expect them to act in a certain way. We think we know how they should act.
This is a contradiction. If they have achieved some sort of consciousness that is so far above us that they are "special", then how could we possibly be the judges of how they act?
How can we say you have achieved a consciousness I haven't, and yet I know all about how you should act?
The other mistake is, putting them on a pedestal causes us to put importance on something outside ourselves. By focusing on something we perceive as so important,
it distracts us from finding silence and conductivity inside ourselves.
The only redeeming factor is guru worship can be used to increase devotion. It's a dangerous path focusing our bhakti on one living guru, for all the reasons you guys have enumerated. Better to pick an ideal that is not a living person, and that makes Jesus a good one! |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Jun 11 2007 : 12:00:58 AM
|
Hi Yogibear,
It's interesting to read all the criteria you listed for Jesus as an excellent example of an enlightened guru. I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the part about compassion and identifying himself completely with God.
I thought you might be interested in reading something I found, and I have posted it here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....OPIC_ID=2661 |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4369 Posts |
Posted - Jun 11 2007 : 07:06:59 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Christi wrote:
Someone does not become united with divine consciousness because they are considered by others to be a great Yogi. Yoga is ontological, not democratic. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (as the famous yogi JC said)
david wrote:
Perhaps you are making the assumption, which I made at one time, that he was not a great Yogi because he was a caste-traditionalist. I no longer believe that. Yogic enlightenment is not as the siddha-tradition would lead us to believe. It's not an all-around increase in consciousness. The person who has it remains limited, often in ways that others are less limited.
I wasn't making the assumption that he was not a great Yogi at all. In fact I have never heard of him before. I was simply saying that being accomplished in Yoga has nothing at all to do with the number of people who think that you are accomplished in Yoga. In fact, it could be quite detrimental to someone's practice.
quote:
None of that actually directly stands against what I am saying. Whatever about that, people can, in a deep state of love, make choices or propagate rules which are bad for other people and the world. They really believe in what they are doing -- subjectively, their feelings are not necessarily different to what they would be if they are making good choices for people.
It seems that we are talking about different things when we use the word love. You are using the term love here in the popular sense, where two people 'fall in love'. This is the kind of love sang about in songs, and portrayed in just about every film ever made. You are right, it is a form of love that can blind people, and in that state they can make decisions, say things, and act in ways that are harmful to others. This form of love is not really love at all. It is really a product of fear, and has more to do with preference, attachment, desire and clinging. This is fairly obvious as when the person that we are 'in love with' says or does a few things that we don't like, or goes off with another man/ woman, suddenly we hate them. We hate them because they are no longer fulfilling our needs. No longer helping us to blind ourselves from our own separation and fears.
This is conditional love. It is conditional in that it is almost fully dependent on reciprocation.
But this is not what I meant at all when I used the word love. I was talking about an aspect of consciousness that arises naturally as we face our fears and our alone-ness. A state that is no longer an escape, or an illusion, as worldly love is, but is real and independent. That is why they call it unconditional love. It is actually the way that the higher intelligence acts through the human mind to manifest in the world, the more the individual surrenders to that intelligence.
quote:
So, my point here is that a deep state of love has its limits as a state of consciousness. We can lose sight of that.
So it is this form of love that I am saying has no limits whatsoever as a state of consciousness. There is simply no limit to the expansion possible for the human mind into this aspect of reality. This kind of love cannot share space in the mind with egoic consciousness. The ego is born out of a sense of separation; in fact we could say that it simply is that sense of separation. Divine love is born out of the dissolution of separation. It is what floods in as the illusion of separation diminishes.
quote:
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that yogic development is not the only important kind of development for ourselves and the world around us.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I am not saying that it is not worth doing anything at all except studying Yoga. In fact I play several instruments and in my spare time I teach music and dance. In fact, for me, music and dance are very much a part of my yoga, as is caring for my children and work. What I am saying is that if I ever thought I was a great musician, or a great dancer, or a great Dad, I would be simply living a dream. Even if I thought I was a great lover, I would be living a dream.
So this is where (hopefully) what I am writing about actually ties in with what you are discussing in this thread (or one aspect of it). As far as Gurus go, and Yoga, this could help to explain why people bow down to them and worship them. It is not because they have become good at one particular skill, in the same way that a great poet, or writer, or politician has become good at one particular skill. It is because they have awakened from the dream in which people believe they are something other than a light of the divine consciousness, a manifestation of divine love acting in the world.
quote:
I'm just writing to put a point across, not to convince any particular person, and I respect any disagreements you may have, Christi. I do appreciate any challenge though, because it forces me to make a good (or better) case for what I am saying.
Likewise.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Jun 11 2007 07:39:11 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4369 Posts |
Posted - Jun 11 2007 : 07:17:23 AM
|
quote:
When fear is looked closely at, it can be seen to be love too, though sometimes manifesting in a misdirected way. Fear stems from love for the self, love for the self to avoid pain and suffering and it is this love that guides us home. So to me, love is the whole ladder from bottom to top.
A
Beautiful, Anthem, thanks for that.
I think you are right, fear plays a part in protecting us from dissolving too fast, before we are ready so to speak. It is not a bad thing, and without it, we could be in a real mess pretty fast.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Jun 11 2007 08:35:37 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jun 11 2007 : 09:34:54 AM
|
Christi said:
It seems that we are talking about different things when we use the word love. You are using the term love here in the popular sense, where two people 'fall in love'. ... This is conditional love. ...
But this is not what I meant at all when I used the word love. I was talking about an aspect of consciousness that arises naturally as we face our fears and our alone-ness. A state that is no longer an escape, or an illusion, as worldly love is, but is real and independent. That is why they call it unconditional love. It is actually the way that the higher intelligence acts through the human mind to manifest in the world, the more the individual surrenders to that intelligence.
Christi, I actually do mean the same sort of love you do. The 'unconditional love', the 'spiritual love'. Yes, I'm saying that it has its limits as a state of consciousness. Meaning that someone in it can easily be making mistakes and missing important things. Making mistakes and missing some things that others are not missing.
Yes, the Shankaracharya is only one (small) example. The truth is that in this case I can't evaluate where he was in terms of this unconditional love (really, no-one can), so the example is somewhat hypothetical. It's meant to be representative of a principle that I believe in. Whereas I do believe people reach unconditional love, I'm not seeing much evidence that they don't still remain significantly limited, as is the nature of people. While they are significantly limited in terms of consciousness, I don't like them being seen as being on the top of the ladder of consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The Ego
