Siddhis in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras - Vibhuti pada.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

I'd say that we don't have to accept that they are ultimately different, for one is a potential while the other is realized potential, granted that in the eye of transcendent Siva there is no differential but in the relative eye of the aspects of Siva there is a differential...not unlike there is a difference in the first and purest prana springing from the Self and the last guna of the dense earth. 

 

An oak seed must be in a dark moist covering of earth to first sprout and then grow up into a great oak reaching for the sun.  (and also producing new seeds)

 

We could also consider something along the lines of the following quote, "Dipolar theism, according to Charles Hartshorne, understands God as both absolute and relative, abstract and concrete, eternal and temporal, necessary and contingent, infinite and finite. The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world...."

Yes well, that is qualified nonduality (aka vishistadvaita) - God is the whole, and we (plus everything else) are a part. That is not the whole truth though  

[Jadespear]

7 hours ago, dwai said:

There is a compulsive clinging to the ephemeral (phenomenal) world. That is part of the letting go/reduction that needs to happen. By not reinforcing the clinging, one can truly enjoy all the places to go to. It is like in a dream - if you are not lucid, you are subject to the dreams' ups and downs, pleasures, pains, horrors, and joys. If you are lucid, you can enjoy all of it without being affected by it. 

 

This spiel about " If you don't control nature, you are dominated by it." is a classic example of operating from a position of fear.  So long as you are controlled by fear, you will remain compulsive and reactionary. What you consider to be tools of development are tools of deconstruction. You must deconstruct your personality and identity to get to the core of your True Nature. There is no other way. 

 

You can't become free of "nature" by fighting or forcefully vanquishing it. Nature cannot be vanquished, period. Each attempt to control and vanquish nature has only resulted in progressively greater entrapment.

 

One of the stories my teacher told us about the nature of freedom is how monkeys used to be trapped. The trap would be a jar with a fruit or similar item, with a mouth wide enough to let monkeys slide their hands into it. So the monkey would see the item it desired and slide its hand into the jar. Then it would grasp the item in its fist. When it would try to withdraw its hand out, it would not be able to, as the closed fist would prevent it from doing so. But being a monkey, it would not let go of the thing it so desired and would fight, trying to "vanquish" nature, by yanking its arm out of the jar - object of desire in its closed fist. it would be so engrossed in this, it wouldn't realize that the trapper had sneaked up on it from behind, ready to bag it. Moral of the story? If monkey wants to be free, it must let go of its desire to control nature (i.e., hold on to the object it desires) - in other words, it needs to let go of its desire. 

 

Which is wiser?

• Having been given the truth and then rejecting it to wallow in the delusions of the phenomenal world?
• Or knowing and being stable in the realization of the ephemeral nature of the phenomenal world, truly enjoying it without succumbing to the compulsive clinging of the mind?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

It's not about clinging to the world.  Please stop repeating things you read.  It's about living your life well and however you so choose.  By not reinforcing the clinging, you can go to where?  What are you even talking about?

 

Um, Sounds like you are gravely mistaken in what I was talking about.  Im not controlled by fear.  Controlling nature is a very real thing that is borne out of wanting to do it because it can be done.  It's not about fear at all.  Riddle me this - if you could bake a cake by yourself and it would turn out to be the best cake ever would you choose to do that, or would you go buy one from the store knowing that it would not be as good?

 

And realizing ones nature is just the beginning of a very long road.  It's not the end, like you seem to suggest.  Thats the problem with some traditions...they don't go far enough.  Been there done that.  Wake up and live now.  

 

You're also mistaken on vanquishing nature.... never mentioned attempts to thwart the reality of nature.  Controlling it, is controlling it.  Not rendering it obsolete.  

 

You're monkey story is absurd.  I'm not a monkey, neither are you.  It's utterly baffling to me how people like you actually believe they can achieve something without wanting to achieve it at all.  Its total bullshit.  Do yo honestly think anyone ever realized or achieved anything because they didn't want to?  Because they did not do anything?  100% false.  People who try to realize their nature - are trying to do something, which is born of desire.  Plain and simple.  No one can escape.  Did the Buddha want to become enlightened?  YES, he did.  Just because the basic impulse drives you, doesn't mean that it has to overtake you along the ride ; - )

 

Which is wiser?  Your questions are pathetic.  These are not things to consider in light of any definition of wisdom.  Having been given the truth?  What truth?  Delusions of the phenomenal world?  What delusions?  I'm not deluded.  All you're saying is basically this - " Hey things change, so don't get too wrapped up in them.  Enjoy the flow of life."    Haha - what a grand realization you've made!!!  Congratulations on waxing poetic on basic facts of life that wise people learn when they're like 12 years old.  

 

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Yes well, that is qualified nonduality (aka vishistadvaita) - God is the whole, and we (plus everything else) are a part. That is not the whole truth though  

 

so it may have sounded to you but while we were bouncing concepts around with some crossover, yet I also meant more along the lines of Saiva Siddhanta being of the lineage that taught Patanjali and other Rishi's.  (and not the pluralistic schools of later times)

Edited November 29, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

It's not about clinging to the world.  Please stop repeating things you read.  It's about living your life well and however you so choose.  By not reinforcing the clinging, you can go to where?  What are you even talking about?

 

Um, Sounds like you are gravely mistaken in what I was talking about.  Im not controlled by fear.  Controlling nature is a very real thing that is borne out of wanting to do it because it can be done.  It's not about fear at all.  Riddle me this - if you could bake a cake by yourself and it would turn out to be the best cake ever would you choose to do that, or would you go buy one from the store knowing that it would not be as good?

 

And realizing ones nature is just the beginning of a very long road.  It's not the end, like you seem to suggest.  Thats the problem with some traditions...they don't go far enough.  Been there done that.  Wake up and live now.  

 

You're also mistaken on vanquishing nature.... never mentioned attempts to thwart the reality of nature.  Controlling it, is controlling it.  Not rendering it obsolete.  
 

We are seeing the effects  of “controlling nature” - pollution, global warming, overpopulation. How nice! 

2 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Your monkey story is absurd.  I'm not a monkey, neither are you.  It's utterly baffling to me how people like you actually believe they can achieve something without wanting to achieve it at all.  It’s total bullshit.  Do yo honestly think anyone ever realized or achieved anything because they didn't want to?  Because they did not do anything?  100% false.  People who try to realize their nature - are trying to do something, which is born of desire.  Plain and simple.  No one can escape.  Did the Buddha want to become enlightened?  YES, he did.  Just because the basic impulse drives you, doesn't mean that it has to overtake you along the ride ; - )

Wow, I didn’t call you a monkey. It was an allegory.  

 

2 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Which is wiser?  Your questions are pathetic.  These are not things to consider in light of any definition of wisdom.  Having been given the truth?  What truth?  Delusions of the phenomenal world?  What delusions?  I'm not deluded.  All you're saying is basically this - " Hey things change, so don't get too wrapped up in them.  Enjoy the flow of life."    Haha - what a grand realization you've made!!!  Congratulations on waxing poetic on basic facts of life that wise people learn when they're like 12 years old.  

 

My my, you seem to be quite intensely triggered by what I wrote.

I think 12 year olds lives are a lot less complicated than most adults, so there’s something to bringing that kind of simplicity back in your life.
 

Maybe it’s time to rediscover your inner child ?

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

so it may have sounded to you but while we were bouncing concepts around I also meant more along the lines of Saiva Siddhanta being of the lineage that taught Patanjali and other Rishi's.  (and not the pluralistic schools of later times)

Shaiva siddhanta is dualistic. 

[Jadespear]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

We are seeing the effects  of “controlling nature” - pollution, global warming, overpopulation. How nice! 

Wow, I didn’t call you a monkey. It was an allegory.  

 

My my, you seem to be quite intensely triggered by what I wrote.

I think 12 year olds lives are a lot less complicated than most adults, so there’s something to bringing that kind of simplicity back in your life.
 

Maybe it’s time to rediscover your inner child ?

 

Controlling nature was not meant to be meant in those ways.  calling forth rain, the sunshine, influencing ones own body to harmony, etc.  Those are the themes meant by controlling nature.  

 

Yeah, well your monkey story is great for no one with a brain that thinks things by itself.  Not for me. 

 

12 year olds have simple lives?  Hahaha!!!!!! Not according to your little philosophy, all their desires make them miserable.... hahaha so pathetic.  Spirituality for the masses is what you're talking about.  Be nice, don't want too much so you're not disappointed, etc.  thats where all that stuff comes from.  Fine, I agree to a point.  But, there is a lot more that you could be aware of.  

 

But of course, you have nothing substantial to say... just like I thought.  You're just another mind fuck who likes to regurgitate what they read without any critical thinking being applied to the larger questions.

 

Geez... I suppose it's too much to expect even a decent conversation out of someone like you.  No, you're too busy sitting there all into yourself.  Good luck with that.  When you eventually resign to the fact that being alone all the time sucks, maybe we could talk...not that you would probably have anything to say though.  

[dwai]

13 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Controlling nature was not meant to be meant in those ways.  calling forth rain, the sunshine, influencing ones own body to harmony, etc.  Those are the themes meant by controlling nature.  
 

ah I see! I’m reminded of a story about a very famous spiritual  master who visited a drought stricken area, where there had not been rain for many years. When he got there, and he asked about why everything was so stark and lifeless the villagers told him about the drought. He decided to stay there for a few days. It started raining the same night. And it rained incessantly for several days. The village got a lot of rain, the lakes filled up, and so on. The villagers very so grateful, they went to the master, to shower him with gifts, praising him for making it rain. But he said he didn’t do anything. He said the village was out of balance/out of sync with the dao, and his presence brought back the balance in the area. So it rained.
 

No magic is needed, just balance.

13 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

Yeah, well your monkey story is great for no one with a brain that thinks things by itself.  Not for me. 

well, good for you  

It is clear that you are very intelligent. 

13 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

12 year olds have simple lives?  Hahaha!!!!!! Not according to your little philosophy, all their desires make them miserable.... hahaha so pathetic.  Spirituality for the masses is what you're talking about.  Be nice, don't want too much so you're not disappointed, etc.  thats where all that stuff comes from.  Fine, I agree to a point.  But, there is a lot more that you could be aware of.  
 

What desires do 12 year olds have?  
maybe for candy and games? Those are not the kind of clinging that bind you. 

 

13 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

13 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Geez... I suppose it's too much to expect even a decent conversation out of someone like you.  No, you're too busy sitting there all into yourself.  Good luck with that.  When you eventually resign to the fact that being alone all the time sucks, maybe we could talk...not that you would probably have anything to say though.  

Thank you. Good luck to you too  

Btw I didn’t say being alone is necessary, yet it seems orthogonal to the discussion here. How are developing Siddhis related to being alone? 

[Jadespear]

32 minutes ago, dwai said:

ah I see! I’m reminded of a story about a very famous spiritual  master who visited a drought stricken area, where there had not been rain for many years. When he got there, and he asked about why everything was so stark and lifeless the villagers told him about the drought. He decided to stay there for a few days. It started raining the same night. And it rained incessantly for several days. The village got a lot of rain, the lakes filled up, and so on. The villagers very so grateful, they went to the master, to shower him with gifts, praising him for making it rain. But he said he didn’t do anything. He said the village was out of balance/out of sync with the dao, and his presence brought back the balance in the area. So it rained.
 

No magic is needed, just balance.

well, good for you  

It is clear that you are very intelligent. 

What desires do 12 year olds have?  
maybe for candy and games? Those are not the kind of clinging that bind you. 

 

Thank you. Good luck to you too  

Btw I didn’t say being alone is necessary, yet it seems orthogonal to the discussion here. How are developing Siddhis related to being alone? 

 

Sure, the presence of someone can have "magical" effects... no secret there.  Just like how a persons presence can be felt by normal people who are paying attention.  Just like how immensely powerful beings ( Like the sun ) emanate their power that effects everything.  Thats one kind of power.  Thats not the only kind.  There are many more of course.  Which one has to develop to understand and use.  How did the wandering master even know the village was out of balance?  See, thats another power that takes effort to learn and use.  The master obviously developed enough to know what was going on there.  

 

How is the desire of a boy who wants candy any different than the desire of a woman who wants a siddhi?  If you're going to assert wide sweeping things by how you talk incorrectly, I suggest you revise your way of speech.  Desire is the same no matter the object desired.  What makes you so sure there are levels of bondage attached to different objects of desire?  Doesn't make any sense to me.  All that matters is how much one desires and for how long.  

 

Bind you?  Bind you to what?  Is this the beginning of the "we need to escape this dimension" concept?  Because if it is - I strongly disagree and refute that opinion a million times over.  We're all here for some reason.  There is no urgent and life long need to escape physical reality.  It exists for a reason.  Everything does.  Nothing can exist that does not have a reason to exist.  That concept is nearly as bad as Christian "salvation".  Utterly immoral in the truest sense of the word...Claiming reasons to do things that are completely not true.  

 

What you have been referring to is "being at peace" with oneself.  That's an individual state of mind and being, it revolves around being focused more or less on yourself most of the time - hence being alone was mentioned.  Even when you're around other people, if you don't engage with them their presence is basically moot.  No wonder so many buddhist followers are sadly extremely self absorbed and overly critical of basically everything life has to offer... lol.   Probably because they misunderstood the meaning of the Buddha's first noble truth that has been incorrectly translated and spread around the world for thousands of years.  

 

Developing Siddhis is very much related to being alone.  It's really only through solitary isolated repeated practice that any Siddhis would ever be manifested.  The effects ( siddhis ) only happen as an extension of oneself, only come from oneself.  Being alone is basically required for people who need isolation to focus and be still.  I suppose you could do it in a group setting, but it would just be a group of people all working with themselves and not the group, because the presence of other people would basically make it more challenging I would venture to suspect.  

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

Shaiva siddhanta is dualistic. 

 

Not really if we look further,  "Advaita Siddhanta (Non-dual perfect conclusions) aka Suddha Saiva Siddhanta"  differs from the pluralistic schools of Meykandar and Aghorasiva.

Edited November 29, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

8 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Sure, the presence of someone can have "magical" effects... no secret there.  Just like how a persons presence can be felt by normal people who are paying attention.  Just like how immensely powerful beings ( Like the sun ) emanate their power that effects everything.  Thats one kind of power.  Thats not the only kind.  There are many more of course.  Which one has to develop to understand and use.  How did the wandering master even know the village was out of balance?  See, thats another power that takes effort to learn and use.  The master obviously developed enough to know what was going on there.  

 

it is more plausible that the karmic fruits of the village drew the master to the village. The collective karmic balance being exhausted, the change was triggered by the appearance of the master. There are many ways to skin this proverbial cat. 

 

If you are a “God” oriented person, it can be understood as “the grace of God”. 

8 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

How is the desire of a boy who wants candy any different than the desire of a woman who wants a siddhi?  If you're going to assert wide sweeping things by how you talk incorrectly, I suggest you revise your way of speech.  Desire is the same no matter the object desired.  What makes you so sure there are levels of bondage attached to different objects of desire?  Doesn't make any sense to me.  All that matters is how much one desires and for how long.  
 

Is it though? Is the desire for sustenance the same as desire for power? Sure a child’s desire for candy could be explained by them craving the sugar. But it could also be explained physiologically as their body needing the sugar (energy). What explains the desire for power? One kind of desire is to reinforce the ego (power), the other is simply an outcome of physiology.

 

8 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Bind you?  Bind you to what?  Is this the beginning of the "we need to escape this dimension" concept?  Because if it is - I strongly disagree and refute that opinion a million times over.  We're all here for some reason.  There is no urgent and life long need to escape physical reality.  It exists for a reason.  Everything does.  Nothing can exist that does not have a reason to exist.  That concept is nearly as bad as Christian "salvation".  Utterly immoral in the truest sense of the word...Claiming reasons to do things that are completely not true.  

Bind you to the cycle of craving and revulsion - which leads to suffering. 

8 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

What you have been referring to is "being at peace" with oneself.  That's an individual state of mind and being, it revolves around being focused more or less on yourself most of the time - hence being alone was mentioned.  Even when you're around other people, if you don't engage with them their presence is basically moot.  No wonder so many buddhist followers are sadly extremely self absorbed and overly critical of basically everything life has to offer... lol.   Probably because they misunderstood the meaning of the Buddha's first noble truth that has been incorrectly translated and spread around the world for thousands of years.  

While it might be that you have a point there, where else would you find “peace”? By acquiring powers? To be able to control nature? To what end? 

8 hours ago, Jadespear said:

Developing Siddhis is very much related to being alone.  It's really only through solitary isolated repeated practice that any Siddhis would ever be manifested.  The effects ( siddhis ) only happen as an extension of oneself, only come from oneself.  Being alone is basically required for people who need isolation to focus and be still.  I suppose you could do it in a group setting, but it would just be a group of people all working with themselves and not the group, because the presence of other people would basically make it more challenging I would venture to suspect.  

That doesn’t seem like a logical argument to me. You seem to be the one espousing developing Siddhis, and yet, you are against being alone. So which one is more important to you? Developing Siddhis or not being alone? Seems like you want to have the cake and eat it too. 

[Jadespear]

57 minutes ago, dwai said:

it is more plausible that the karmic fruits of the village drew the master to the village. The collective karmic balance being exhausted, the change was triggered by the appearance of the master. There are many ways to skin this proverbial cat. 

 

If you are a “God” oriented person, it can be understood as “the grace of God”. 

Is it though? Is the desire for sustenance the same as desire for power? Sure a child’s desire for candy could be explained by them craving the sugar. But it could also be explained physiologically as their body needing the sugar (energy). What explains the desire for power? One kind of desire is to reinforce the ego (power), the other is simply an outcome of physiology.

 

Bind you to the cycle of craving and revulsion - which leads to suffering. 

While it might be that you have a point there, where else would you find “peace”? By acquiring powers? To be able to control nature? To what end? 

That doesn’t seem like a logical argument to me. You seem to be the one espousing developing Siddhis, and yet, you are against being alone. So which one is more important to you? Developing Siddhis or not being alone? Seems like you want to have the cake and eat it too. 

 

There is a major problem with your story.  It's a story.  No one has any idea what actually happened, if it happened at all.  The master could be lying...and caused it to rain himself.  No one knows.  I get the point you're trying to make though.  That's all well and good. 

 

I suppose desire could be better defined then.  Few people can actually distinguish between needs and desires.  Needing to survive is an instinct.  Wanting beyond need is the impetus for growth and learning.  Without it, nothing would happen.  What I still don't understand is what cycle of suffering you are talking about?  

 

Finding peace of mind and maintaining it is all well and good.  I am in no way talking down on that subject.  That's a good thing.  There are infinite ways people find to establish and continue on at peace with themselves and their surroundings.  Since this was about Siddhis, the conversation went in that direction.  You tried to say they weren't necessary, I'm saying they are.  Because they are after a certain point in one's development or evolution or whatever you want to call it.  Just like a skilled craftsmen compared to a fool.  Who is more useful to the world?  A person who can actually do things that assist others, or just a fool who is at peace with himself?  Sure, it could be argued that both the craftsman and the fool have something to offer.  However basic survival needs are met by the craftsman, not the fool.  The craftsman can make many different things that benefit many different people.  The fool only knows one thing that can benefit only certain sects of people.  So, in the end - the fool's influence is limited compared to the craftsman.  The fool is less able to assist and help others simply because they lack the skills to do so.  Obviously - the great traditions espouse the notion that we develop knowledge and wisdom at the same time, or acquire skills and peace of mind simultaneously.  Have you ever read "Siddartha" by Herman Hesse?  In the end there is a good passage on "peace".  

 

Being alone is best balanced by not being alone, obviously.  All I'm saying is that they are both important.  It's totally fine if you disagree.... but people who actually renounce the world and try to go live by themselves miss out on a lot that life has to offer by being with other people.  Friendship, love, fun, etc etc etc. Humans are social creatures, its in our DNA.  Resisting that will definitely bring about suffering in some form.  

[dwai]

30 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

There is a major problem with your story.  It's a story.  No one has any idea what actually happened, if it happened at all.  The master could be lying...and caused it to rain himself.  No one knows.  I get the point you're trying to make though.  That's all well and good. 

That's what is more important. We can't take allegories literally - they are meant to be fingers pointing to the proverbial moon. 

30 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

I suppose desire could be better defined then.  Few people can actually distinguish between needs and desires.  Needing to survive is an instinct.  Wanting beyond need is the impetus for growth and learning.  Without it, nothing would happen.  What I still don't understand is what cycle of suffering you are talking about?  

Differentiating between wants and needs is very important for sure. Needs are for survival. Wants go beyond that. Now wants and fulfilling wants can work in two ways. One could go on a rampage trying to satisfy their wants - when channeled right, it will lead to technological advancements, and so on. When channeled wrong, it produces modern-day self-obsessed billionaires or sociopaths/psychopaths. 

 

The cycle of wants - craving (I want this or that, and the more I get, the more I want it - an addict's mindset), or don't wants - revulsion (I don't want this or that, and I keep doing things to avoid these - a compulsive shirker's mindset) - this is what leads to suffering in the world - caused by the incessant shunting between craving and revulsion. The "suffering" that most people in developed nations experience is chronic dissatisfaction with their lives. So people are constantly stuffing their faces with food, using alcohol and drugs to numb their senses or chase highs, or addicted to shopping, and so on. 

 

In spiritual practices, worldly desires are replaced by spiritual desires. After a certain point,  even those spiritual desires must be relinquished to get the highest knowledge. Now, if you ask me what the highest knowledge is, we must start at the beginning. You don't seem like that kind of person from what I can remember of your posts over the years  

30 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Finding peace of mind and maintaining it is all well and good.  I am in no way talking down on that subject.  That's a good thing.  There are infinite ways people find to establish and continue on at peace with themselves and their surroundings.  Since this was about Siddhis, the conversation went in that direction.  You tried to say they weren't necessary, I'm saying they are.  Because they are after a certain point in one's development or evolution or whatever you want to call it.  Just like a skilled craftsmen compared to a fool.  Who is more useful to the world?  A person who can actually do things that assist others, or just a fool who is at peace with himself?  Sure, it could be argued that both the craftsman and the fool have something to offer.  However basic survival needs are met by the craftsman, not the fool.  The craftsman can make many different things that benefit many different people.  The fool only knows one thing that can benefit only certain sects of people.  So, in the end - the fool's influence is limited compared to the craftsman.  The fool is less able to assist and help others simply because they lack the skills to do so.  Obviously - the great traditions espouse the notion that we develop knowledge and wisdom at the same time, or acquire skills and peace of mind simultaneously.  Have you ever read "Siddartha" by Herman Hesse?  In the end there is a good passage on "peace".  

You are conflating the role of a sage with that of a craftsman. What does a sage need to do to be useful to the world? Does he need to control nature, or does he need to spread the way toward the highest knowledge? If you want to fulfill the role of a craftsman, many can do that, and they don't need any magical, mystical powers to do so. There are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, blacksmiths, engineers, doctors, etc. 

30 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

Being alone is best balanced by not being alone, obviously.  All I'm saying is that they are both important.  It's totally fine if you disagree.... but people who actually renounce the world and try to go live by themselves miss out on a lot that life has to offer by being with other people.  Friendship, love, fun, etc etc etc. Humans are social creatures, its in our DNA.  Resisting that will definitely bring about suffering in some form.  

I don't disagree at all. I'd say there is no need to be alone either. One can do spiritual practices without running off into the mountains. Friendship, love, fun, etc, are not desires - they are part of our DNA, as you so eloquently put it. Why should someone resist any of that? 

 

So the crux of the matter, IMHO, is who is a balanced, "free" person? The one whose mind is unattached - ie, a non-clinging/non-grasping mind. That's the reason most spiritual traditions recommend eschewing desire. Desires (and their flipside of aversion) create repetitive mental patterns that result in "suffering." The way out is to let go of these compulsive patterns - and the outcome is a non-grasping mind.  

[Jadespear]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That's what is more important. We can't take allegories literally - they are meant to be fingers pointing to the proverbial moon. 

Differentiating between wants and needs is very important for sure. Needs are for survival. Wants go beyond that. Now wants and fulfilling wants can work in two ways. One could go on a rampage trying to satisfy their wants - when channeled right, it will lead to technological advancements, and so on. When channeled wrong, it produces modern-day self-obsessed billionaires or sociopaths/psychopaths. 

 

The cycle of wants - craving (I want this or that, and the more I get, the more I want it - an addict's mindset), or don't wants - revulsion (I don't want this or that, and I keep doing things to avoid these - a compulsive shirker's mindset) - this is what leads to suffering in the world - caused by the incessant shunting between craving and revulsion. The "suffering" that most people in developed nations experience is chronic dissatisfaction with their lives. So people are constantly stuffing their faces with food, using alcohol and drugs to numb their senses or chase highs, or addicted to shopping, and so on. 

 

In spiritual practices, worldly desires are replaced by spiritual desires. After a certain point,  even those spiritual desires must be relinquished to get the highest knowledge. Now, if you ask me what the highest knowledge is, we must start at the beginning. You don't seem like that kind of person from what I can remember of your posts over the years  

You are conflating the role of a sage with that of a craftsman. What does a sage need to do to be useful to the world? Does he need to control nature, or does he need to spread the way toward the highest knowledge? If you want to fulfill the role of a craftsman, many can do that, and they don't need any magical, mystical powers to do so. There are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, blacksmiths, engineers, doctors, etc. 

I don't disagree at all. I'd say there is no need to be alone either. One can do spiritual practices without running off into the mountains. Friendship, love, fun, etc, are not desires - they are part of our DNA, as you so eloquently put it. Why should someone resist any of that? 

 

So the crux of the matter, IMHO, is who is a balanced, "free" person? The one whose mind is unattached - ie, a non-clinging/non-grasping mind. That's the reason most spiritual traditions recommend eschewing desire. Desires (and their flipside of aversion) create repetitive mental patterns that result in "suffering." The way out is to let go of these compulsive patterns - and the outcome is a non-grasping mind.  

 

 

Do tell Dwai - what is the highest knowledge?  Hahaha, I desire to know.  Before you even begin to write it, why is it the highest?  

 

And you still can't refute the fact that people who are able to help others in one way are just as important/valid as those who can help in another different way.  My metaphorical example is just an illustration of that.  So any statements like "you don't need to do that" or "Sindhis aren't important" etc etc etc are not entirely truthful or correct.  You're just expressing your opinion, not an objective truth.  

 

And yet again - you're still not defining this "unattached" state of being completely, and you're using words that don't express your point well enough.  What you are describing is the difference between defining/experiencing one's present and ongoing sense of satisfaction based on the results that they hope or want to achieve or attain versus being someone who has some semblance of what they want but their sense of satisfaction or fulfillment as they live their life is not entirely based on achieving that.  Which is once again - nothing more than establishing and maintaining one's peace of mind based on nothing outside of themselves, (without allowing circumstances to shape and influence their sense of happiness or joy or whatever).  Sure, it'd be great to be content forever, but no one really can do that if they want to exist here in the physical world.  Pretty sure that state of mind and being is reserved for prolonged periods of time people somewhere else in the universe.  

 

Let's forego the mental gymnastics please.  It's not possible to exist without acting on desire.  Living as this "unattached" person is nothing more than the eventual realization of that desire.  Sure the desire may subside once you reach the state of being like that, but you had to do something to get there.  

 

I think you're confused and stuck in your own philosophy.  Walking around as an "unattached" free person.... is not a person who is free at all, it's the total opposite.  You're drunk on the ecstasy of being at peace with yourself.  Unable to relate to others in a meaningful way.  You're the most "un-free" of anyone.  Addicted to peace and happiness.  Hahahahaha. 

 

Furthermore, in my opinion there is no real "freedom" ever.  Not in a literal defined way.  We will always be subject to something.  Yes, we have the freedom to choose how we act, and think, etc etc but thats all done within the context of life that we really can't entirely escape from.  Freedom defined as "without consequences" I cannot fathom.  

 

And P.S. - The actual correct translation of the first noble truth is this - "The wheel of life doesn't sit correctly on its hinge" .... which basically just means that the events of life are random and unpredictable, life doesn't follow an entirely foreseeable pathway, you never know what may happen.  Which makes a lot of sense when you think of the historical context in which it was written.  Everything and everyone was more or less organized to be a certain way so people could plan their lives to a certain extent for their own survival and also their own happiness.  It's all too sad that this has been mistranslated as "life is suffering" for so long.  The noble truth makes total sense when seen in light of the rest of the noble truths.  Because one acknowledges that they will never be able to predict and foresee and guarantee their happiness based on life circumstances... what then can they do?  All they can do is really work on themselves and how they initiate and respond to life.  Which is what the rest of the buddhist path basically is.  

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

Do tell Dwai - what is the highest knowledge?  Hahaha, I desire to know.  Before you even begin to write it, why is it the highest?  

 The Highest Knowledge is Knowing your True Nature. As far as why that is so, it is because, knowing this, there will be no more questions. 

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

And you still can't refute the fact that people who are able to help others in one way are just as important/valid as those who can help in another different way.  My metaphorical example is just an illustration of that.  So any statements like "you don't need to do that" or "Sindhis aren't important" etc etc etc are not entirely truthful or correct.  You're just expressing your opinion, not an objective truth.  

Did you read the OP? It's not simply my opinion - Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras, said so, among other masters. 

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

And yet again - you're still not defining this "unattached" state of being completely, and you're using words that don't express your point well enough.  What you are describing is the difference between defining/experiencing one's present and ongoing sense of satisfaction based on the results that they hope or want to achieve or attain versus being someone who has some semblance of what they want but their sense of satisfaction or fulfillment as they live their life is not entirely based on achieving that.  Which is once again - nothing more than establishing and maintaining one's peace of mind based on nothing outside of themselves, (without allowing circumstances to shape and influence their sense of happiness or joy or whatever).  Sure, it'd be great to be content forever, but no one really can do that if they want to exist here in the physical world.  Pretty sure that state of mind and being is reserved for prolonged periods of time people somewhere else in the universe.  

 

Why can't someone do it if they want to exist here in the physical world?  Just because you can't seem to?  

I would say that being content in and of themselves, will lead to work that is the best for the world - doing for the sake of doing alone, without any desire for an outcome. Such action will rise spontaneously and will be perfectly joyful. Also of course, it might be that no action is needed, then none will arise. 

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Let's forego the mental gymnastics please.  It's not possible to exist without acting on desire.  Living as this "unattached" person is nothing more than the eventual realization of that desire.  Sure the desire may subside once you reach the state of being like that, but you had to do something to get there.  

That's like saying, "not running after your bus is the same as eventually riding the bus."  

No, my intelligent friend, that is not the same. It is quite the opposite - you are unattached because you don't crave. Not because you do and attain the object of your craving, which then immediately leads to the next thing to crave for and chase after. 

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

I think you're confused and stuck in your own philosophy.  Walking around as an "unattached" free person.... is not a person who is free at all, it's the total opposite.  You're drunk on the ecstasy of being at peace with yourself.  Unable to relate to others in a meaningful way.  You're the most "un-free" of anyone.  Addicted to peace and happiness.  Hahahahaha. 

 And the craving/aversion-ridden person is who is free? Free to crave? Free to run away from things that cause them discomfort? 

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Furthermore, in my opinion there is no real "freedom" ever.  Not in a literal defined way.  We will always be subject to something.  Yes, we have the freedom to choose how we act, and think, etc etc but thats all done within the context of life that we really can't entirely escape from.  Freedom defined as "without consequences" I cannot fathom.  

What consequences do you mean? Death? From the day we are born, we are rushing headlong toward death. This body-mind appeared, and it will disappear as well. What can be more inevitable than that?

40 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

And P.S. - The actual correct translation of the first noble truth is this - "The wheel of life doesn't sit correctly on its hinge" .... which basically just means that the events of life are random and unpredictable, life doesn't follow an entirely foreseeable pathway, you never know what may happen.  Which makes a lot of sense when you think of the historical context in which it was written.  Everything and everyone was more or less organized to be a certain way so people could plan their lives to a certain extent for their own survival and also their own happiness.  It's all too sad that this has been mistranslated as "life is suffering" for so long.  The noble truth makes total sense when seen in light of the rest of the noble truths.  Because one acknowledges that they will never be able to predict and foresee and guarantee their happiness based on life circumstances... what then can they do?  All they can do is really work on themselves and how they initiate and respond to life.  Which is what the rest of the buddhist path basically is.  

If life is unpredictable, one should not be too set in their ways, expecting things to happen in a certain way or another. This "wanting things to happen in a certain way" and getting stressed out when it doesn't is called craving, or "not wanting things to happen a certain way" and doing all sorts of gymnastics to avoid it,  is called aversion - together they are known as trśnā (or literally thirst). In the Vedantic paradigm they are called raga-dveśa (clinging-aversion). A non-grasping mind allows one to accept whatever arises (especially since the world and life is not deterministic) without plunging into the depths of despair or jubilation. 

[Jadespear]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 The Highest Knowledge is Knowing your True Nature. As far as why that is so, it is because, knowing this, there will be no more questions. 

Did you read the OP? It's not simply my opinion - Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras, said so, among other masters. 

 

Why can't someone do it if they want to exist here in the physical world?  Just because you can't seem to?  

I would say that being content in and of themselves, will lead to work that is the best for the world - doing for the sake of doing alone, without any desire for an outcome. Such action will rise spontaneously and will be perfectly joyful. Also of course, it might be that no action is needed, then none will arise. 

That's like saying, "not running after your bus is the same as eventually riding the bus."  

No, my intelligent friend, that is not the same. It is quite the opposite - you are unattached because you don't crave. Not because you do and attain the object of your craving, which then immediately leads to the next thing to crave for and chase after. 

 And the craving/aversion-ridden person is who is free? Free to crave? Free to run away from things that cause them discomfort? 

What consequences do you mean? Death? From the day we are born, we are rushing headlong toward death. This body-mind appeared, and it will disappear as well. What can be more inevitable than that?

If life is unpredictable, one should not be too set in their ways, expecting things to happen in a certain way or another. This "wanting things to happen in a certain way" and getting stressed out when it doesn't is called craving, or "not wanting things to happen a certain way" and doing all sorts of gymnastics to avoid it,  is called aversion - together they are known as trśnā (or literally thirst). In the Vedantic paradigm they are called raga-dveśa (clinging-aversion). A non-grasping mind allows one to accept whatever arises (especially since the world and life is not deterministic) without plunging into the depths of despair or jubilation. 

 

 

Hahaha! I wish your highest knowledge was true.  But it's totally not.  Highest compared to what that is lower?  No more questions?  Really, you and I are one part of existence... just because we can see our true nature, doesn't mean it necessarily applies to everything else in existence.  There is a lot more to everything than just us.  No more questions...?  Bah.  More like, you're satisfied with this and are no longer curious to explore and discover stuff.  Like I said in the beginning, knowledge of the self is the beginning of everything else - not the end.  How does it function? To how far can one influence things?  How much does someone get influenced, etc You'll never know if you just sit there appeased by your own self.  

 

I don't care if Patanjali said so or if other people did.  I don't blindly follow anyone or what they say.  Neither should you.  Just because people discover and proliferate some knowledge about something, doesn't necessarily mean it is everything that could ever be understood about that thing itself and also it doesn't negate the existence of things that they haven't discovered or simply choose not to discuss. 

 

Sorry but, I'm seeing things in a larger context than you are.  You're just talking about nonsensical ways of defining things and semantics.  It's not your fault really, because you're just repeating things you've heard and read which were written and spoken by people just as immature in knowledge of these subjects.  What we are essentially talking about is the difference between people who enjoy taking an active part in life through "supernatural" means - because there is no reason not to, and people like you who see no reason why to do so at all.  Your position is defenseless in certain respects, if you actually believe its better when taken into real world application.  You really think that someone who is just at peace with themselves could help someone afflicted by disease?, or can someone who can diagnose elemental causes of said disease and alleviate them through esoteric means help them?  See the difference?

 

Consequences as in effects.  As in there is a cause and effect chain always in force.  If you do nothing, you get nothing. If you do something, you get something.  Applies to everything.  Sometimes doing nothing is needed, sometimes not.  Thats the whole point of the middle direction.  Balancing both.  You're referring more to a singular way, which is akin to the way of saintliness.  Saints devote themselves to one or very few aspects of spirituality.  Sages do not.  Sages learn everything that they can and apply it to better themselves and whatever they so choose.  Sages follow the middle direction.  Saints do not.  

 

On the whole "freedom" concept - again its bullshit.  It's a stupid way of describing something that doesn't exist.  The actual meaning of that concept throughout oriental religions was meant to be free from ignorance.  Nothing more.  Obviously, the only thing that frees one from ignorance is knowledge.  Which is why people DESIRED to LEARN.  

 

 

 

[Jadespear]

Guy 1 - "Hey!  Guess what guys I finally learned the highest knowledge...."

 

Guy 2 - "Oh really, thats nice.  Did you bring anything for dinner?"

 

Guy 1 - "No, we don't need to eat because we have the highest knowledge..."

 

Guy 2 -" What are you talking about?...your knowledge is useless and I'm hungry, don't you know where to get food from?"

 

Guy 1 - "Sorry, no I don't know where to get food from."

 

Guy 2 - "Great, I'm so glad you found your great revelation.  Now go figure out how we're goin to eat tonight."

 

Guy 1 - "Where?"

 

Guy 2 - "Seriously?"

 

 

Hahahahahaha.  

 

 

[ralis]

16 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

Guy 1 - "Hey!  Guess what guys I finally learned the highest knowledge...."

 

Guy 2 - "Oh really, thats nice.  Did you bring anything for dinner?"

 

Guy 1 - "No, we don't need to eat because we have the highest knowledge..."

 

Guy 2 -" What are you talking about?...your knowledge is useless and I'm hungry, don't you know where to get food from?"

 

Guy 1 - "Sorry, no I don't know where to get food from."

 

Guy 2 - "Great, I'm so glad you found your great revelation.  Now go figure out how we're goin to eat tonight."

 

Guy 1 - "Where?"

 

Guy 2 - "Seriously?"

 

 

Hahahahahaha.  

 

 

Ramana Maharshi is the goal of all Advaita devotees. He was cared for while he was in deep samadhi with not a care in the world, including having his diapers changed. Completely helpless!

 

We have one friend on that path who sold a thriving business and now lives off of the generosity of others. No self is a disastrous path! She suffers from Zen sickness with an entitled ego to match. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by ralis

[steve]

@Jadespear 

 

Warning - Cool it with the personal insults.

Thanks

 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

Hahaha! I wish your highest knowledge was true.  But it's totally not.  Highest compared to what that is lower?  No more questions?  Really, you and I are one part of existence... just because we can see our true nature, doesn't mean it necessarily applies to everything else in existence.  There is a lot more to everything than just us.  No more questions...?  Bah.  More like, you're satisfied with this and are no longer curious to explore and discover stuff.  Like I said in the beginning, knowledge of the self is the beginning of everything else - not the end.  How does it function? To how far can one influence things?  How much does someone get influenced, etc You'll never know if you just sit there appeased by your own self.  

How does what function?  
 

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

I don't care if Patanjali said so or if other people did.  I don't blindly follow anyone or what they say.  Neither should you.  Just because people discover and proliferate some knowledge about something, doesn't necessarily mean it is everything that could ever be understood about that thing itself and also it doesn't negate the existence of things that they haven't discovered or simply choose not to discuss. 

 

oh I’ve explored and realized what I write about. Been there and done that with Siddhis etc. They are parlor tricks when looked at from the perspective of the highest knowledge. Amusing, entertaining, certainly, but really, boring! 

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Sorry but, I'm seeing things in a larger context than you are.  You're just talking about nonsensical ways of defining things and semantics.  It's not your fault really, because you're just repeating things you've heard and read which were written and spoken by people just as immature in knowledge of these subjects.  What we are essentially talking about is the difference between people who enjoy taking an active part in life through "supernatural" means - because there is no reason not to, and people like you who see no reason why to do so at all.  Your position is defenseless in certain respects, if you actually believe its better when taken into real world application.  You really think that someone who is just at peace with themselves could help someone afflicted by disease?, or can someone who can diagnose elemental causes of said disease and alleviate them through esoteric means help them?  See the difference?

I think it’s quite clear from your outbursts what/who is the immature one  (but feel free to believe what you will). 

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

Consequences as in effects.  As in there is a cause and effect chain always in force.  If you do nothing, you get nothing. If you do something, you get something.  Applies to everything.  Sometimes doing nothing is needed, sometimes not.  Thats the whole point of the middle direction.  Balancing both.  You're referring more to a singular way, which is akin to the way of saintliness.  Saints devote themselves to one or very few aspects of spirituality.  Sages do not.  Sages learn everything that they can and apply it to better themselves and whatever they so choose.  Sages follow the middle direction.  Saints do not.  

So you go craving and chasing things in the middle path? 🤯

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

On the whole "freedom" concept - again its bullshit.  It's a stupid way of describing something that doesn't exist.  The actual meaning of that concept throughout oriental religions was meant to be free from ignorance.  Nothing more.  Obviously, the only thing that frees one from ignorance is knowledge.  Which is why people DESIRED to LEARN.  

Keep telling yourself that  

4 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

[ralis]

24 minutes ago, dwai said:

How does what function?  
 

oh I’ve explored and realized what I write about. Been there and done that with Siddhis etc. They are parlor tricks when looked at from the perspective of the highest knowledge. Amusing, entertaining, certainly, but really, boring! 

I think it’s quite clear from your outbursts what/who is the immature one  (but feel free to believe what you will). 

So you go craving and chasing things in the middle path? 🤯

Keep telling yourself that  

How do you know that a so called deep reality exists? Prove it outside of quoting ancient writings? Further, applying the use of logic as you did a few posts ago proves what exactly? Science is based in logic and myth is not. 

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, ralis said:

How do you know that a so called deep reality exists? Prove it outside of quoting ancient writings? Further, applying the use of logic as you did a few posts ago proves what exactly? Science is based in logic and myth is not. 

I know from direct experience. I don’t need any other proof, and none would be possible either.
 

Applying logic is meant to take someone to the point where they are looking into the proverbial abyss. And then whether they dive in or not, is another matter entirely. 

[Jadespear]

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

I know from direct experience. I don’t need any other proof, and none would be possible either.
 

Applying logic is meant to take someone to the point where they are looking into the proverbial abyss. And then whether they dive in or not, is another matter entirely. 

 

@dwai - You still haven't disproven the validity of pursuing understanding siddhis.  All you've said is that your highest knowledge is the highest knowledge and haven't proven why either...  I'd love to hear it.  Please enlighten us.  

 

Parlor tricks?  I think thats a very poor way to describe someone who can heal another through a process of energy exchange, or someone who could materialize food for the hungry, or someone who could teleport to save you from disaster.  I really doubt that you've experienced really anything of what you say.  

 

Haha, do I go chasing/craving things?  No.  I pursue things.  It's a different level of quality than chasing/craving as you seem to describe.  And, yes I do enjoy learning as much as I can.  So I do it a lot.  

 

And, yes I will gladly keep on believing in what I like about the "escape" reality "freedom" nonsense that people like to talk about.  Until someone can articulate a well reasoned position to the contrary.  Can you? @dwai 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I know from direct experience. I don’t need any other proof, and none would be possible either.
 

Applying logic is meant to take someone to the point where they are looking into the proverbial abyss. And then whether they dive in or not, is another matter entirely. 

 

That is faith  based as opposed to being logical. It comes off as trying to convince, or preach to another with your personal faith based belief system. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by ralis

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

That is faith  based as opposed to being logical. It comes off as trying to convince, or preach to another of your personal faith based belief system. 

It’s your opinion. In yoga, there are 3 ways to gain knowledge. 

1. direct experience (eg you see a fire) 
2. intuition (you see smoke and intuit there is a fire)
3. testimony of a reliable witness (teachers/masters, texts etc).

Different levels. Seekers start with 3 and work their way up to 1 usually. That’s how it works in secular education as well. 

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

@dwai - You still haven't disproven the validity of pursuing understanding siddhis.  All you've said is that your highest knowledge is the highest knowledge and haven't proven why either...  I'd love to hear it.  Please enlighten us.  

Self realization is the highest knowledge, because that is what makes all other forms of knowledge possible. What is the Self? It is consciousness unconditioned. No one can prove it to you - you have to realize it yourself. We can only point to it, and show the way. 

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

Parlor tricks?  I think thats a very poor way to describe someone who can heal another through a process of energy exchange, or someone who could materialize food for the hungry, or someone who could teleport to save you from disaster.  I really doubt that you've experienced really anything of what you say.  

it’s your prerogative to doubt. So how many are you going to teleport, or materialize food for, or heal? There are 8 billion people in the world - maybe at any one given moment, even if 1% are suffering (sick/starving/in danger) - which Siddhi can alleviate all their problems? 

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

Haha, do I go chasing/craving things?  No.  I pursue things.  It's a different level of quality than chasing/craving as you seem to describe.  And, yes I do enjoy learning as much as I can.  So I do it a lot.  

that’s great! It’s okay to learn and pursue knowledge. But after a point it too becomes craving. 

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

And, yes I will gladly keep on believing in what I like about the "escape" reality "freedom" nonsense that people like to talk about.  Until someone can articulate a well reasoned position to the contrary.  Can you? @dwai 

Again, that’s your prerogative and preference. Just because Patanjali and other masters have warned against chasing Siddhis, it doesn’t mean you have to follow it. More power to you!