Attachment/Detachment?

Prana?
:leaving:

 

Prana = subtle life force yes? But most of us need to take in food to get it. There are stories of people who don't need to eat I know. Breath too is said to be another source of prana.


But really what I'm saying is that even if the ego is dissolved, there is still individuation so long as there is the body -

 

To have total and complete knowledge seems to me almost beyond what is concieveable for the human being. Even to have complete knowledge of our own bodies seems a virtual impossibility. At every second, millions of tiny processes are occuring in the physical organism of which we are wholly unaware.( We are indirectly aware of some of them thanks to science) So we'd need to be conscious of all that before we could even claim a complete knowledge even of ourselves.
To have true cosmic consciousness, as is attributed to the Paramatman aspect of the Divine in Hunduism, we would not only have to have this knowledge, but also knowledge of all bodies everywhere at all possible times and places past, present and future - and that's only for starters.

That is why when I hear someone say that X or Y is beyond all ego and totally one with the Divine in all respects, I am a little bit sceptical. They are perhaps one with the Divine up to a point - but some individuality remains nonetheless, as well as many limitations on their actual knowledge, which couldn't pertain to God if He is omniscient.

I'm not being sceptical just for the sake of it - I just think that things have to be got into proportion.

 

Such a being does not stay alive, such a being is life itself.

For a detached person, the body is but a vehicle. It needs gas it needs oil. It is, however, not an attachment as defined in Hinduism.

 

That must denote a more or less unconscious life, as such a being doesn't actually know the detailed workings even of the tiny bit of life - the body - which they inhabit.

 

Absolutely the opposite, when one is life itself, one is in tune with the workings of the entire universe. Remember being life is one aspect of it, the other facet of the same diamond is being knowledge itself, ad another is being bliss.

 

But how can a being who is unconscious of the workings of their own body have full knowledge?


I'll have to digress here, because something related to this question springs to mind. I once met an ex-vaishnava who had set himself up as a healer. When I said to him that many diseases are caused by bacteria, and the ancient sages had no knowledge of this, he became almost angry, and tried to tell me they did know.
That is clearly not the case, or if it were, then they did humanity a great diservice by remaining silent about their knowledge for so many centuries.

Anyway, I think that illustrates my thinking here. The great illuminati didn't have all knowledge. Even Sri Aurobindo said as much - he says in one place that the Buddha for example, had no knowledge of events on the American continent during his life on earth.

Anyway, I think we have to accept that there are different orders of knowledge. Knowing the One doesn't give detailed knowledge about the cosmos necessarily, therefore, it is not complete.
Science gives us knowledge of the cosmos and its workings, but no knowledge of the One which underlies existence, thus it too is incomplete.

Myabe in the future we will learn to combine these two modes of knowledge in a new way.

 

I never said anything about being unconscious of the workings of the body.

 

All I'm saying is that the knowledge, even of the greates seers, is limited.

Just 100 years ago for instance, none of them could have told you anything about the existence of DNA,and couldn't now, unless they'd gained the knowledge from empirical sources like books.

 

"But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Jesus seemed to indicate certain knowledge was restricted.

 

I think they know, but sense and communicate it in a different way.

 

Just because someone doesn't talk about something does not mean they don't know.

And as far as science, it is a work in progress. Todays theories may well be totally disproved tomorrow. Who knows? Someday the whole theory of DNA may be turned on its head, just as the theory of the geocentric universe was.

Further science only forms laws based on observed phenomena, but seldom explains them, except by reference to other axiomatic laws. But what makes these laws work? What causes gravity?

Science only knows so much, and much of it may be disproved in the future. Its grounding as a basis of judging knowledge then, would seem rather shaky.

 

I'd say religion knows only so much too. Difference is that religion is fixed in it's nescience, and shows very little sign of making progress in general.

But as I said before, if these sages did know about things like DNA or even bacteria, their silence has had terrible consequences for millions. However, it is really quite simple - before science discovered these things, they were not known by anyone.
Same with things like the American continent - prior to Columbus, or posssibly Lief Ericson, nobody in the old world, not even the greatest gurus, had any inkling it was there.

Religions give explanations of phenomena which are even less reliable than scientific explanations.

BTW - DNA is more than just theory - the entire human gnome has now been mapped.

If scientific theories are overturned in the future, it will only be by better scientific theories.

 

And you think science has been better for the world than religion? This is the system of knowledge that has created nuclear weapons, polluted the Earth beyond repair, and plunged humanity into a mad rush of meaningless activity, ruining the general health and quality of life everywhere.

Science could be extremely beneficial, but not in the direction it is moving, where it is little more than pandering the self-interest of big corporate monopolies that fund almost all research.

Religion may not have knowledge of these things in the same sense science does - through text books and diagrams. But yogis have been manipulating subtle forces to heal and change in a far more effective and natural way for centuries. Even today the drugs of modern science are nowhere near as effective as ayurvedic treatments (which have none of the long list of side effects).

As for the continent of America, studies I have read show deep cultural similarities between native Americans and Tibetans, far beyond the bounds of this coincidence.

Even if not so, not knowing it would have made no difference to the world, indeed it would have spared the lives of millions that were killed by the Americans in occupying and 'defending' their county.

And finally, it is utterly foolish to study religion as a way of explaining the minutiae of natural phenomena. It is like looking to a geography text book for an explanation of how a diesel engine works.

 

I don't say science alone can solve our problems, but only in combination with a new consciousness of what we are and what our place in the universe is.


As long as the fruits of science are mis-used, as they are now, for things like weapons etc there will be no peace on earth. But - the people with their fingers on the triggers, so to speak, are often motivated by their misconcieved notions of religion.

So in my view, both science and religion need to change.

I should add that I'm very sceptical of critiism of science and technology in the context of an internet forum, which only exists because of science.

As for medicine, I don't agree that things like aryuveda are in any way superior - often they are ineffective, and in India, if I'm not misteken, aryuveda is regarded as 'poor man's medicine'.
'Natural healing' etc is ok up to a point - ie until there is some serious illness.

I just don't get what you're saying about America and Tibet.
As far as I know, the US had no role in opening Tibet up to the rest of the world - it was the Brits who were responsible. The famous Younghusband expidition.

I agree it's useless to look in books of religion for scientific knowledge. It simply isn't there, because prior to the advent of science, it didn't exist.

 

And when was the advent of science Bill? Discovery of DNA? Or the steam engine? Perhaps the wheel? Or fire?


BTW, ayurveda IS natural healing. And the good thing about it is, if followed correctly, it doesn't allow major diseases to come for the most part.

And you are kinda mistaken about the poor man's medicine. There people who say that are the west-worshipping fools who seek nothing more than eating sleeping and fucking.

 

What I was saying about America and Tibet is that the great similarities between the native americazn ways and tibetan ways (even their musical structures are very hard to differentiate) would indicate a contact between the two - long before either was 'discovered.'

 

And there is no such thing as a 'new' consciousness. Consciousness never changes, only the objects of consciousness change.

 

You never know...it is quite possible...esp. b/c the Native Americans did migrate from Asia....

Moving more present in time than the Bering Strait ... there have been some theories and such that there was contact with the East and America (as well as Africa and Americas) by accidental driftings of lost sea vessels. So who knows if some kind of South Asian or South East Asian got himself lost on the way from trading further east and drifted in the other direction... its all possible...there is so much we think we know but we have no idea...

 

Maybe some are, but I think thats a huge generalization.

I have heard it said by at least one Indian spiritual teacher.

It all depends on how you define the word consciousness. For the person who is in a state of ignorance, gaining knowledge is in effect to gain a new consciousness. New that is, for the individual. Call it 'awareness' if that makes it easier. I'm sue you'd agree that a new and expanded awareness is definitely possible for the individual person, and perhaps for everyone.
Thats' what I'm saying is necessary if we are to use science and the possibilities it gives us in an harmonious and positive way. Rather than in self destructive ways as we currently do.

There are many similarities in ancient cultures from around the globe. It seems very likely to me that at one time, 10 - 20 thousand years ago, there was communication between different continents.
This is an interesting area.

However, I don't see how that pertains to this discussion. There's absolutely no evidence that they posessed knowledge comparable to modern science in many areas of existence.