Nak Khid

If the ball lands exactly where you predicted it would land and you had a computer that could predcit all other future evnts in life that doesn't mena the events are pre---determined or pre--planned It means the events are predictable

Suppose you thought for a few days about the advantages and disadvantage of quitting a job you might hypothetically have and then the next day you decided to quit the job And then you were informed that you decision and everything else in life was predetermined to happen. You would still experience it as a decision you had to make. So in knowing every single movement in life is predetermined knowing this would have no relevance to making what we call "a decision" or any future decision. File under useless trivia Ramana Maharshi just liked the idea because he liked to

they are debates I didn't say the debates would take you to the ultimate truth yes you can .The best and most proper type of debate is with people with different experiences than you yes

How 740-ish of you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism Except God, no substance can be or be conceived. -Spinoza During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza's doctrine was considered radical at the time he published, and he was widely seen as the most infamous atheist-heretic of Europe. His philosophy was part of the philosophic debate in Europe during the Enlightenment, along with Cartesianism. Specifically, Spinoza disagreed with Descartes on substance duality, Descartes' views on the will and the intellect, and the subject of free will.[3] In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism." Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence. Although humans experience only thought and extension, what happens to one aspect of existence will affect others. Thus, Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology, and uses these as a basis for morality. Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind. More specifically, he defined intuition as the ability of the human intellect to intuit knowledge based upon its accumulated understanding of the world The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them: the unity of all that exists; the regularity of all that happens; and the identity of spirit and nature. Spinoza's "God or Nature" [Deus sive Natura] provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine." Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature[9] and called him the "God-intoxicated Man."[10][11] Spinoza inspired the poet Shelley to write his essay "The Necessity of Atheism."[10] Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity. Comparison to Eastern philosophies Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy."[18][19] It has been said that Spinozism is similar to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga. Though within the various existing Indian traditions there exist many traditions which astonishingly had such similar doctrines from ages, out of which most similar and well known are the Kashmiri Shaivism and Nath tradition, apart from already existing Samkhya and Yoga.[20] Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying "the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[21] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay "As to Spinoza's Deity – natura naturans – conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity – as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple.

this is an awakened teaching ?

thanks

A brief introduction to debate in Tibetan Buddhism

A 2013 conversation between A. H. Almaas and Rupert Spira They have their differences beginning at the 20 minute mark. They debate on some things > Although the format is conversation rather than a debate format where people would speak about only differences in a more competitive manner. The thing that is good about debate is that it tests you. People may bring up weaknesses in your concepts that you may have not realized. It can also have a negative as anything can ___________________________________________________________________________________ A.H. Almaas (/ˈɑːlməs/ AHL-məss) is the pen name of A. Hameed Ali (born 1944), a Kuwaiti American author and spiritual teacher who writes about and teaches an approach to spiritual development informed by modern psychology and therapy which he calls the Diamond Approach. Almaas is originally from Kuwait. He is the spiritual head of the Ridhwan School. He may be described, among other things, as an Integral theorist, mystic, spiritual teacher or an exponent of the perennial philosophy. Almaas' books were originally published by the Ridhwan School, under the Diamond Books publishing title, but are now published by Shambhala. The Diamond Approach is a contemporary spiritual path integrating the teachings and practices of the ancient wisdom traditions with modern depth psychology. The Diamond Approach is derived from the experiences of Almaas, along with Karen Johnson and Faisal Muqaddam (who split off early on to develop his own approach). They were among the first students of Claudio Naranjo, an early pioneer of the integration of spiritual and therapeutic work. The curriculum of the work draws upon the founders' backgrounds in Sufism, Platonism, Buddhism and the Fourth Way. Teachers of the Diamond Approach focus on the students' specific perception of their own immediate work issues.[1] Presentation of a canonical body of knowledge and practice is introduced over time as required.

This is contradictory unless Sadhguru is not a higher conscious being

I am going to add two similar questions for this thread 1) Is there potential value in a spiritual teacher doing public debates? 2) Is there potential value in one spiritual teacher having a public discussion with another spiritual teacher? 3) Is there potential value in a spiritual teacher doing public interviews?

Sadhguru does debates, as has been shown and debating is also a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism

what's the real reason you're saying it?

I don't know what this has to do with the topic

And do you discount the value of debating in Tibetan Buddhism ?

If I am not mistaken Leo believes God is love and love is acceptance

Maybe you could give a free copy to Leo at least since he is a person of influence. What video on youtube is the bets introdcution to RASA ?

Do seriously awake people do publicity stunts ?

Do you have free access to it? What you are saying here is "read Ramana and then read Eckhart, you will notice there are differences." and read Ramana's book. This means all a person would have to would have to do is go to 1000 level people on Ramana's list, listen to their lectures, take notes and read their books and then just paraphrase it a little and then you would be deemed a 1000 level enlightenment person. It would juts be a matter of saying what they say - and then if we were to look at what they said we would find that other people before them had said the same thing and they have paraphrased what they said are simply said the very same thing

. Christians term this same thing "a sinner"

If you are not 1000 yourself how would you have the perception to determine that if Ramaji claims he's enlightened and at the highest 1000 level that he is at that level or enlightened at all ? Suppose you are in the 600s. You would not be able to determine who is at a higher level only a level lower than you. It's like a green belt in Karate trying to determine if someone is a red belt or black belt In other words Ramaji is claiming he has a method of determining if a person has reached a certain level of awakening. How do we know he is qualified to devise such a method? People can claim they are any number they want

Have you seen someone fight death and lose? Dylan Thomas said Do not go gentle into that good night.... ...Rage, rage against the dying of the light _________________________________________________________ I have seen this, a sick person passing but fighting against it Seeing someone die can be upsetting no matter how they pass Perhaps we would like to imagine for our own death a smooth transition , an acceptance Is that the best way to die? Or should we die fighting? I want to know what you have experienced not only what you think what have you seen? What have you learned?