The Intellectual.

Originally posted by FMF
I think any belief system or spiritual path that does not foster emotional intelligence has something seriously wrong with it.

Are you suggesting persons on the spiritual path have no emotions?

Their emotions are checked.......this is called control.

Do you know what control is?

Without controlling the mind we are slaves of the sense.

Unchecked emotions are the cause of suffering.

True emotions are embraced.

Emotions caused and produced by ignorance are checked.

Because you have not checked your emotions you are fond of chasing sex and becoming intoxicated.

This is not recommend for advancing on the spiritual path.

You know this.

Originally posted by Dasa
Are you suggesting persons on the spiritual path have no emotions?

Er, no. I meant exactly what I said. Which was: I think any belief system or spiritual path that does not foster emotional intelligence has something seriously wrong with it.

What narks me is the sticking the word 'true' on the front of everything.

Telling you that what you have now isn't real or as good as these 'true'
feelings/knowledge/ect that I have.

"oh your not really happy, you can only have 'true happiness' if you join
my crazy fruitcake society, and give up all that sex and stuff.

It's condescending, patronising, and a way of trying to de-legitimise the
life and experiences of the target person.

It even get used about other believers,
You point out them doing something bad, or them changing their mind
and suddenly, "Oh well they weren't 'true believers', they were only
pretending".

Originally posted by googlefudge
What narks me is the sticking the word 'true' on the front of everything.

Telling you that what you have now isn't real or as good as these 'true'
feelings/knowledge/ect that I have.

"oh your not really happy, you can only have 'true happiness' if you join
my crazy fruitcake society, and give up all that sex and stuff.

It's condescending, pat ...[text shortened]... nd suddenly, "Oh well they weren't 'true believers', they were only
pretending".

You apparently want to sin to your hearts content. Go ahead, we
Christians are not stopping you and God gave you free will.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently want to sin to your hearts content. Go ahead, we
Christians are not stopping you and God gave you free will.

The very concept of sin, original sin in particular, is ridiculous, and is a theist invention.


On of the nice things about not being a theist is that I know there is no such thing as sin.


This doesn't mean I don't have morals, and don't lead a moral life.

But Things have to have a good reason for being considered morally wrong.
And simply displeasing an imaginary god is not one of them.

EDIT: And god being a non-existent fairy tale did nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The very concept of sin, original sin in particular, is ridiculous, and is a theist invention.


On of the nice things about not being a theist is that I know there is no such thing as sin.


This doesn't mean I don't have morals, and don't lead a moral life.

But Things have to have a good reason for being considered morally wrong.
And simply d ...[text shortened]... is not one of them.

EDIT: And god being a non-existent fairy tale did nothing of the sort.

Good luck. That is, if you believe in such things.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The very concept of sin, original sin in particular, is ridiculous, and is a theist invention.

How do you know that to be true?

On of the nice things about not being a theist is that I know there is no such thing as sin.
You don't know there is no such thing as sin, any more than a Christian knows there IS such a thing as sin.

You said in a prior post that you didn't appreciate Christians tagging all of their rhetoric as "true." And yet you do the same thing with your counter arguments. What makes your version of truth more credible and worthy than anyone else's? Are you superior in some way? Which way?

This doesn't mean I don't have morals, and don't lead a moral life.
What is a moral life, and in what way is it important to you when it's all said and done.

But Things have to have a good reason for being considered morally wrong.
And simply displeasing an imaginary god is not one of them.
Well, without God there is no sin. Because the very definition of sin is to go against the will of God.

EDIT: And god being a non-existent fairy tale did nothing of the sort.
Again, by what authority do you insist this is true, and aren't you being hypocritical by declaring your rhetoric true when you admittedly hate it when others do the same regarding their beliefs?

Originally posted by divegeester
My view is that cognitive intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever. Emotional intelligence helps us get our point of view accepted if not agreed with; a lack of this is often confused in this forum with a lack of humility or love or caring or whatever.

I find it amusing that dasa starts a thread about anti-intellectualis ...[text shortened]... but he will only ignore me as he thinks my disagreeing with him is dishonesty. This is fine.

I agree with you in that it is the emotional intelligence that takes one closer to God. My stated path on which I have started down is that of Bhakti i.e. that of devotion to God. What I had stated in the thread on the story of Nachiketa were the words of Kathopnishad, which I confirmed as the view of that Upanishad. Not my personal view. I can hardly claim to try what the God of Death was telling Nachiketa how intelligent people approach this question.
Bhakti or Devotion is the easiest and least tiring of the ways to realize God, although, yes, people who believe in logic and reason can try to approach God by Dnyan Yog i.e. the way of Knowledge.
For me the simplest thing is to yield oneself to God.
Now a real life story I must tell.( Not an Indian folk tale.)
One lawyer, full of ego and the pride of worldly success, approached Ramakrishna Paramhans, the great Saint of India in the 1880s. He asked the saint, Sir, you are a mendicant and depend on food given by your Bhaktas or devotees to feed yourself. I can hardly do that as I have to work to feed my family, my numerous servants and have to give to charity.I do not have any time to do any Bhakti etc. like you are doing. So shall I have to remain Godless ? Ramakrishna thanked him for all the charitable work he was doing and then told him :- Sir, you are a lawyer. You draw up a power of attorney on a bond paper, in favour of God. Write out in that power of attorney that, God, from today, I am your servant.I have given the power of attorney of my life to you. I will live my life henceforth as your servant.Whatever you say I will do. Whatever I will do will be for you. Nothing more is required to earn the blessings of God. The lawyer retired, much wiser and much humbler than he was before.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I agree with you in that it is the emotional intelligence that takes one closer to God. My stated path on which I have started down is that of Bhakti i.e. that of devotion to God. What I had stated in the thread on the story of Nachiketa were the words of Kathopnishad, which I confirmed as the view of that Upanishad. Not my personal view. I can hardly cla ...[text shortened]... o earn the blessings of God. The lawyer retired, much wiser and much humbler than he was before.

So you believe you must earn the blessings of God in this manner or is
their many ways to earn the blessings of God? Or do you believe that
God's blessings are free to anyone that will ask for and accept them?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you believe you must earn the blessings of God in this manner or is
their many ways to earn the blessings of God? Or do you believe that
God's blessings are free to anyone that will ask for and accept them?

God's blessings are free for anyone who will ask for those in all sincerity. God says in the Geeta that God loves that one the most who has yielded himself /herself to God. But for those who are not comfortable with Bhakti marg or the path of Bhakti, there are 3 principal paths. The first one is of Karma Yog or of Action.Action taken without worrying about its fruits.Action taken without attachment.Action taken and then consecrated to God. The second is that of Raj Yog.This involves meditation on God after doing a number of things first for purification of mind and body. The third one is that of Dnyan Yog or the path of Knowledge.The Sadhak can gather all the books that he can think of and ponder over them as well as go to the Saints and the Sages and ask them questions,internalize the answers and then realize God intellectually. Or try a mix of the 4 paths. As many ways as are persons.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
God's blessings are free for anyone who will ask for those in all sincerity. God says in the Geeta that God loves that one the most who has yielded himself /herself to God. But for those who are not comfortable with Bhakti marg or the path of Bhakti, there are 3 principal paths. The first one is of Karma Yog or of Action.Action taken without worrying abo ...[text shortened]... and then realize God intellectually. Or try a mix of the 4 paths. As many ways as are persons.

I still can't quite understand why you can dismiss the spiritual path of someone who differs from you as lacking in "imagination", lacking in "thinking", lacking in "depth". Your spirituality just seems to be something you happen to have internalized from your environment. There is no particular evidence of "imagination", "thinking" or "depth". Having said that, I support your right to believe what you want to believe about yourself but I just can't quite work out why you need to condescend others while at the same time be so defensive about what you mean or what you have said. Strange concoction.

Originally posted by FMF
I still can't quite understand why you can dismiss the spiritual path of someone who differs from you as lacking in "imagination", lacking in "thinking", lacking in "depth". Your spirituality just seems to be something you happen to have internalized from your environment. There is no particular evidence of "imagination", "thinking" or "depth". Having said that ...[text shortened]... ime be so defensive about what you mean or what you have said. Strange concoction.

There was no intention on my part to be condescending to you. If I remember correctly , I expressed my surprise about your stand on spiritualism, which appeared to me as unnecessarily bound up and unwilling to even consider alternative views. If you have taken my comments as improper in any way, I am sorry to have hurt your feelings.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
There was no intention on my part to be condescending to you. If I remember correctly , I expressed my surprise about your stand on spiritualism, which appeared to me as unnecessarily bound up and unwilling to even consider alternative views. If you have taken my comments as improper in any way, I am sorry to have hurt your feelings.

No. My 'feelings' cannot be hurt on an internet forum, rvsakhadeo. Rest assured on that. I am just fascinated by your odd blend of conspicuous glass chin on one hand and subtle - or perhaps even inadvertent - sneering on the other. And there you go again: my alleged "unwilling[ness] to even consider alternative views [on spirituality]"... all because I don't happen to share your belief system. How do you presume to know what I have considered and haven't considered? It's as if it's in fact you who is not "curious" and you who lacks the "imagination" to fully process dissent and diversity.

Originally posted by FMF
No. My 'feelings' cannot be hurt on an internet forum, rvsakhadeo. Rest assured on that. I am just fascinated by your odd blend of conspicuous glass chin on one hand and subtle - or perhaps even inadvertent - sneering on the other. And there you go again: my alleged "unwilling[ness] to even consider alternative views [on spirituality]"... all because I don't hap ...[text shortened]... curious" and you who lacks the "imagination" to fully process dissent and diversity.

So do tell me what do you think about Hindu spiritualism and my views on it. Both sides have to put forth their sides in a debate.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So do tell me what do you think about Hindu spiritualism and my views on it. Both sides have to put forth their sides in a debate.

What debate?