Intelligence vs. self in the Gita

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Hoth, Feb 15, 2002.

  1. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    "From attachment desire is born, from desire anger. Out of anger confusion arises, through confusion memory wander, from loss of memory the intelligence is destroyed; from the destruction of intelligence a man is lost." - Krishna

    "They say that the senses are great; the mind is greater than the senses. Yet greater than the mind is the intelligence; but he is that which is still greater than the intelligence." - Krishna

    This doesn't make sense to me. First it strongly correlates the self with intelligence, then denies that the self is the intelligence.

    Why wouldn't attachment to the intelligence be another bad form of attachment, even if maybe not as bad as attachment to the physical? If the intelligence isn't the self, if it's below the self as the second quote says, then isn't intelligence irrelevant to the true self? If that's the case then what should the first quote be taken to mean?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    Thanks for the explanation. So, it would be correct to say that intelligence here is equated with realization of the self, rather than with actual thinking capabilities?

    I guess the "soul" is supposed to have thinking capabilities? The soul considered to be the one doing the thinking, despite being in essense outside time?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2002
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
     
  8. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    If the soul knows everything, then the soul can have no new realizations. That means the realization that the self if the soul is a realization done by the body. Since the body/mind is not the real self (rather, the soul is), the self is actually not coming to any realization -- it already knows everything and is simply watching the body realize it.

    That leads me back to the biggest piece of fundamental illogic I saw when I read the Gita. The self is a different sort of thing from the body/mind... yet for some reason it's supposed to be important for the self that the body/mind realize this. Considering that the real self isn't the body/mind anyway, the real self shouldn't care one bit if the body/mind has delusions. Most importantly, for a person to attempt to realize that they aren't the body/mind is to prove that they're still in the delusion: if you know you aren't the mind, you won't attempt to make your mind think about that since you'd no longer identify with your mind or care about the thoughts of your mind. Only the mind can have the delusions, and to think that it's you being deluded is to prove that you haven't made any progress.


    If the soul knows everything, then the soul can have no new realizations. That means the realization that the self if the soul is a realization done by the body. Since the body/mind is not the real self (rather, the soul is), the self is actually not coming to any realization -- it already knows everything and is simply watching the body realize it.

    That leads me back to the biggest piece of fundamental illogic I saw when I read the Gita. The self is a different sort of thing from the body/mind... yet for some reason it's supposed to be important for the self that the body/mind realize this. Considering that the real self isn't the body/mind anyway, the real self shouldn't care one bit if the body/mind has delusions. Most importantly, for a person to attempt to realize that they aren't the body/mind is to prove that they're still in the delusion: if you know you aren't the mind, you won't attempt to make your mind think about that since you'd no longer identify with your mind or care about the thoughts of your mind. Only the mind can have the delusions, and to think that it's you being deluded is to prove that you haven't made any progress.


    By the way, the atheist could say that considering the soul to be a thinking thing is unintelligent because you're being deluded by the physical world's ways (which include intelligence, and time) into the irrational assumption that the nonphysical works in the same ways as the physical. The atheist could say that the simplest and most logical conception of the base of self would be as a perspective of observation... something which is not aware of itself, but which is aware of thought. In other words, the self would have no substance and the entire meaning of it would be "awareness of thought"... and as a result, a full sense of self requires both parts, the observer and the observed. The atheist may say that religion's fundamental unintelligent error is in applying physical concepts like time and thought to the soul, and from those mistakes being misled to the false conclusion that a perspective can have meaning without being of anything.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    So, what is new? just look at all the Alzheimer patients...

    A mind is like OS and the DRAMs, intelligence is like contents in a CD-ROM and self is the whole computer. Without the entire system in ship-shape, the whole thing is useless....

    just another POV....
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
     
  11. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    Simply observation itself... which is why it has no meaning except when there's something for it to observe.

    All thinking is material, intelligence can be explained by physical processes in the brain. The awareness needn't do anything but be aware... there's nothing left for it to do, in fact, since the brain is capable of everything else expcept the actual awareness of thought. The only reason that a non-thinking perspective of observation seems like such a strange concept to people is that we're too used to associating awareness with thought, since thought is what we're aware of. We're too used to ignoring the observed/observer distinction, so we don't normally realize that none of the actual awareness we have is thought, but rather the awareness is of thought.

    Basically, I see two aspects to the universe: the awareness, and that which it is of. Neither means anything without the other. I like kmguru's analogy, because it's similar in function. To use a similar one, a computer without a program to run does nothing... and a program without a computer to run on also does nothing.

    I observe my hand, so who am I that I have come to possess this hand.

    People answer that by saying they are their thoughts. From there you ask "I observe my thoughts, so who am I that I have come to possess these thoughts?"
    This can be answered by saying you are a soul. However, where I have a problem is when you try to say that you can have awareness of that soul, and you seem to arbitrarily ignore the question of "I observe my soul, so who am I that I have come to possess this soul?” Since you ask that question of everything you can experience, since you make the distinction between the experience and the experiencer, you have to ask the question here as well. That’s why I don’t believe in anything being self-aware, as you’re saying the soul is self-aware. If you can observe the universal soul, who are you to have come to possess that universal soul?
     
  12. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
     
  13. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Do you know anything about Kalas?
    THE SIXTEEN KALAS

    Five Kalas like 1) Anna Maya (with cereals)Maya means desire or knowledge, 2) Pranamaya (with breath)this means breathing knowledge, 3) Mano Maya (with mind), 4) Vigyanamaya Vigyan means Science(with scientific knowledge) and 5) Anandamaya Anand means joy(with joy) are present in every human being. With little effort, humans can perfect in three more kalas - 6) Atishayini, 7) Viparinabhimi and 8) Sankramini. The other remaining eight Kalas are 9) Prabhvi. 10) Kunthini, 11) Vikasini, 12) Maryadini, 16) Sanhaladini, 14) Ahladini,1 5) Paripurna and 16) Swarupavasthit :

    Anybody who has the ninth Kala besides the first five natural Kalas and next three perfected Kalas, becomes the god. As per scriptures, the ninth kalas Prabhvi means : KARTUM AKARTUM, that is able to do seemingly impossible tasks. Lord Narasinh is an example of this ninth Kala. Lord Narasinh has an altogether different appearance. He had a body of human and head of a lion. He appeared from a stone pillar that demon Hiranyakashipu had broken with a blow of his mace. It is not possible for an ordinary human being, only a God, having the ninth Kala Prabhvi, can do this. Among all these incarnations, only Lord Krishna is full of all the sixteen Kalas.

    anything you want me to explain i can go ahead.


    bye!
     
  14. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    The modern translation of the word "Kala" is "methodology".
     
  15. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    erm...Kala means Art.



    bye!
     
  16. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    So are these in order from lesser to greater importance? What do 6, 7 and 8 mean, and what do people do to reach them?
     
  17. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Yes the order is like that.

    I"ll post later everything and let you know meanings.I have to go now.(Sorry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    bye!
     
  18. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    6,7,8 can be achieved through TM.(Transdescental Meditation)
    Prabhavi means affecting others emotions via your brain.Others upto 16 inlude doing things like Shape shifting and other seemingly impossible tasks like destroying other person with your own Brain powers etc.
    and as i said if you can achieve above 8 you"re God,and if 16 you are a complete incarnation of God.

    bye!
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2002
  19. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    As Km explained earlier Gita is so popular because of its simplicity and Layman's language.it is flexible and easy to understand,like a pocket Book or Dictionary(

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )where Vedas are elaborate scientific Knowledge housewares.they are purest form of Sanskrit that very few people can understand in this world at least

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    bye!
     
  20. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    In other threads we talked about past civilizations. What if the vedas are the knowledgebase of a long lost civilization? A civilization with Vimanas, gene targeted weapons, matter transmitters, advanced healing etc. etc......
     
  21. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    KM,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    are you trying to put me on?you know past civilization word initiates a lots of writing and posting devil in me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I Think you"re pretty right. as i posted various things in PAST CIVILIZATION thread,we are here talking and dealing with advanced civilization technologies and perhaps a detailed and thorough description and examination of Hindu Texts could yield long but forgotten civilization,which i am doing right know(ie reading Ramayana(its pretty long,i have original Valmiki and Tulsidas's version(both of them,yeah!) and Mahabharata(Original story).


    Vedas are a little complicated for me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    bye!
     
  22. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    I cant help myself from quoting this that "ll perhaps show something
    about how much advancement we are talking about here.
    the above quote is taken from Mahabharata.we are talking about period waaaaay back,During Krishna's time when Gita was made.what does the above text show?Nuclear battle?



    bye!
     
  23. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    PS:VIMANA IN CASE YOU DONT KNOW MEAN AIRSHIPS OR PLANES.
    AS I POINTED OUT EARLIER I HAVE THE ORIGINAL SANSKRIT TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXT IN SANSKRIT WHICH I HAVE OBTAINED FROM INTL SANSKRIT ACEDMY OF MYSORE,WITH MY DAD'S HELP OFF COURSE,SHOWS THE DETAILED VIMANA CONTRUCIONS AND THE WAY FRAMES SHOULD BE SET IN A VIMANA AND WHERE IGNITION SYSTEM SHOULD LIE.
    THE SHAPE ASTONISHINGLY RESEMBLE A FLYING SAUCER(NO I AM NOT KIDDING!)

    THERE ARE ALSO VARIOS OTHER PLANS EG.MOVING OR ROTATING FLOOR PLAN,POWER GENERATION VIA WATER PLANT PLAN. ETC.

    THEY ARE NOT MUCH KNOWN IN TODAYS WORLD BECAUSE INDIA IS YET TO EXPERIENCE FULL MODERNIZATION OF MODERN COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISPS,AS THE INTERNET AND INFO INCREASE WE "LL KNOW MORE.

    Oh!Km...see what i am doin'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BYE!
     

Share This Page