Dear seekers,
Would you not agree that any talk about what a Guru, Sage or Enlightend Being is “supposed” to be like is nothing but mind’s imaginations in the end? It is like discussing, imagining and conceptualizing what it is like to drink water, having never experienced it yourself. Empty banter in the end.
Your efforts would be better spent discovering the Truth as It IS, then any and all commentary about the action or nonactions of a Realized One would be beside The Point. No?
Empty banter is nothing other than flimsy concepts that have no reality.
Discover the Foundation and let Silence Speak.
Blessings.
Hi David,
I was reading Patangali’s Yoga Sutra’s today and I came across this passage.
Book 1, 25.“In the Master is the perfect seed of Omniscience.
The Soul of the Master is in essence one with the Oversoul, and therefore partaker of the Oversoul’s all-wisdom and all-power. All spiritual attainment rests on this, and is possible because the soul and the Oversoul are One.”
Perhaps some of the guru’s you are referring to were not enlightened?
Love,
Carson 
Hi Carson,
Enlightened masters do become omniscient. That means that, as Patanjali says, they become one with the oversoul, and can partake of the omniscience of the oversoul.
But the thing is, the oversoul only knows what actually exists, it doesn’t know about all the things that we (continuously) dream up. So an enlightened master who is able to participate in the omniscience of the oversoul will not be able to tell you about all kinds of things that are not real.
As one master said: “Do not pray to God, he does not even know you exist”.
Christi
Hi Christi.
I was basically thinking tests like physics tests or stuff like that. I wasn’t thinking imaginary mind stuff type of tests. I wasn’t even thinking mind reading type of tests. Just pure factual based tests. I’d really like to see some testing like this done some day. It would go a long way to giving credibility to the whole “enlightened guru” thing.
Love,
Carson
Christi said:
Enlightened masters do become omniscient. That means that, as Patanjali says, they become one with the oversoul, and can partake of the omniscience of the oversoul.
Christi, they do not become omniscient. Omniscient means ‘knows everything’. It doesn’t mean ‘becomes one with the oversoul’.
Sure, you can play semantic games, pursue slippery definitions, and you can pretend that ‘knowing something very important’, or ‘has deep spiritual knowledge’ has the same meaning as ‘omniscient’. But that’s deceptive. It hasn’t. That’s just leads to ‘master’ getting off the hook for NOT knowing everything, while he still gets the credit for knowing everything, and the worship and power that goes with that. If we mean he has ‘deep spiritual knowledge’, we should say that, not say ‘he is omniscient’.
If the falsehood that ‘master’ is omniscient is propagated, then believers are manipulated by that falsehood itself. If you believe your teacher is omnipotent or omniscient, then I say you are manipulated by that delusion. I don’t believe there are any exceptions now, or ever have been. And you will likely be manipulated by someone who was manipulated by his ‘spiritual father’ before him, kind of like child abuse passing down through the generations. It’s not pretty, but I’m just the messenger here.
Don’t shoot the messenger, shoot the unpleasant reality that gives him reason to give the message. It’s time to clean the Yogic ship. Time to separate the Barnum and Bailey Yoga Magic Circus from Yoga practice.
CarsonZi,
yes, this is indeed what the scriptures say that Patanjali said. But I see it as religious hyperbole. The writers of those scriptures were prone to exaggeration. I don’t believe yoga has made anyone omniscient. Nor do I believe that amaroli ‘cures all diseases’, another thing you’ll find the scriptures saying.
Hi David,
Just because you see it as “religious hyperbole” doesn’t necessarily make it so. And just because I (and Patangali) think that a “Master” would have access to any and all True knowledge doesn’t make it so either. But no offence, I kinda trust Patangali a bit more then you in this circumstance as his wisdom has proven to be considerably accurate on just about every account in regards to yoga practices. He seems pretty “on it” if you ask me. Not that you don’t, just that ancient practical wisdom wins in my mind every time unless proven otherwise. Please don’t take offence to this. It’s just my opinion, take it as such.
Love,
Carson
CarsonZi said:
But no offence, I kinda trust Patangali a bit more then you in this circumstance as his wisdom has proven to be considerably accurate on just about every account in regards to yoga practices.
This is a scripture and we don’t even know if Patanjali is a real person, or just a name that the scripture writer’s wrote as the author, while the teachings there may have been gathered from several sources. But if Patanjali were a real person, I think he was probably a really smart one and if he were to come forward in a time machine from those times to now, he would learn a lot from these times, as smart people are inclined to do, as there is a big body of knowledge available now that was not available then.
And I believe, that with the appropriate reflection and discussion with me, he would take my side on this matter.
Until he shows up and logs on, 
I would say he is taking no side on this question at all; the question of whether ‘omniscience’ is meant literally there or not.
I do agree with you, BTW, that Patanjali (whether a person or a group) had remarkable insight on Yoga practices. I would say he was a true genius in Yogic matters. But I don’t think he was omniscient, in the literal sense of the word.
I didn’t say Patangali was omniscient, just that I trust his (or “their” if you prefer to think he was a group) “statements” more than yours because from personal experience I have found his statements on “yogic practices” to be dead on. I have had personal inclinations many times lead me to disagree with things you have said on the forum, so I choose to put more stock in his opinion over yours. This is why I said please don’t take offence. And saying that Patangali’s teachings can no more be authenticated then the teachings of Christ as represented by the Catholic church is a pretty absurd statement in my opinion. You and I both know that what Patangali says is true, can be and has been proven hundreds of thousands of times by hundreds of thousands of different practitioners all over the world. Why would you take exception to one passage in the whole Yoga Sutra’s and run with everything else? Just cause it doesn’t jive with what you WANT to believe? Maybe you need to let go of the attachment to what you think enlightenment is NOT.
Love,
Carson
P.S. To say that after having a conversation with YOU, Patangali would soon come to see the error of his ways is a pretty egoic statement to make.
I regret saying that bit about Jesus and Catholicism, because it is easy to misunderstand. I removed it from above and here it is:
Carson, that is a little bit like saying that you trust Jesus not to have misled us through the Catholic Church, which is something I have heard in my time!
What I mean is this: from my point of view there is no reason to believe that Jesus was committed, at all, to what the Catholic Church had him represent. In a similar way, I don’t have a reason to believe that Patanjali is committed to your belief here as opposed to mine. So to me, your saying that you’d trust Patanjali rather than trust me is like saying someone would trust Jesus that the Catholic Church is right about Jesus. You see what I mean? If you don’t, never mind.
And for the rest of what you’ve said, well, what can I say? A messenger on matters like this should wear a bullet-proof vest.
But I will address one thing. You say I WANT to believe. Actually, that is not the case at all. I have very strong cognitive-motivational independence and I always have had. When I was a boy, I was perplexed that people would say that people would be punished for not believing in God, because to me, belief has never a matter of choice. To me it was like saying you’d get punished for developing a rash, or for not developing one. It made no sense.
But I learned over time that it is not this way for other people, though I often forget it. Some people can choose to believe, and some let their desires influence what they believe. Perhaps these people have no proper concept of those who have cognitive-emotional independence, just as I had no proper concept of cognitive-emotional dependence? Certainly, I see cognitive-emotional dependence being projected on me.
I don’t WANT to believe that Santa doesn’t exist, in fact it is quite the other way around. It was great while I believed it. I loved it. But I just can’t believe it, no matter how much I might want to. Same with so many things religion promises. Same with believing that Yoga makes people omniscient – if anything, I’d prefer if it were true. Same with believing that genes have a very little influence on us – I’d prefer if this were true, and all children were born equal angels, but I know it’s false.
So to settle things, I WANT to believe that you are right here and I am wrong, but I believe that it is not the case.
Hi David,
I’m sorry I made you feel like you need a bullet proof vest, and I’m sorry you feel like you are a “messenger”, but nothing you are saying is any news to me. To me this is all water under the bridge. I have come to a point where experience means more to me then words or mind stuff. This is why I put stock in Patangali’s teachings. Because the teachings are backed up by personal experience for me. And to compare the Bible to the Yoga Sutra’s again to me is absurd. There is nowhere even close to the controversy over the translations, or the secrecy, or the disagreements. Nobody (but you) seems to contest the translations of the Yoga Sutra’s or who wrote them. A LOT of people have a lot of problems with the translations and interpretations of the Bible because of who, and why it was, translated as it was. You and I are both in this group I believe. So to compare their history and to say that because the Bible is so shrouded in metaphor and symbolism that the Yoga Sutra’s must be the same is silly IMHO.
As for having very strong cognitive-motivational independence, this is again mind stuff…attachment you have to your ego. You WANT to think of yourself as having “very strong cognitive-motivational independence”, but when all is said and done, you are me, and I am you, and we have the same “Oversoul”. And all the beliefs we have attached ourselves to, are things that must be stripped away in order for us to realize our TRUE nature. You want to have very strong cognitive-motivational independence, and so you spend much time convincing yourself (and others) that you are like this. So to say “I WANT to believe that you are right here and I am wrong, but I believe that it is not the case” is not very true. You very much DO want to believe that you are right and I am wrong. But it’s all just mind stuff and we will only ever know the TRUTH through personal experience. And MY personal experience tells me that Patangali’s teachings are verifiable and not “religious hyperbole” as you put it. Your personal experience may tell you differently. But eventually one day, when both of us are advanced enough, I’m pretty sure we will come to some type of agreement. But for now, I think it’s time to practice. 
Good luck.
Love,
Carson
Perhaps the issue here is not omniscience at all. That can only belong to God. The way i see it there are two issues only.
a) the egoless, bodiless consciousness, state of self realisation
and
b) spiritual and psychic experiences.
Nobody (but you) seems to contest the translations of the Yoga Sutra’s or who wrote them. A LOT of people have a lot of problems with the translations and interpretations of the Bible because of who, and why it was, translated as it was.
The problems are of meaning, and that is ‘translation’. Was Patanjali speaking metaphorically, hyperbolically, and how does that translate or mistranslate into a more literal mind-set? I am certainly not alone in asking those questions.
As for having very strong cognitive-motivational independence, this is again mind stuff…attachment you have to your ego.
Actually Carson, it isn’t. It’s cognitive-emotional independence. It allows me to believe things I don’t like being true – and to reject beliefs I would like to be true. That’s just a reality of the way my mind works. I’m not saying I have absolute cognitive-emotional independence, but I have very strong relative cognitive-emotional independence on these kinds of questions.
As for the phenomenon of ‘shooting of the messenger’, yes, I think that’s happening.
Beliefs are beliefs any way you state it. They all gotta disappear in the end.
Love,
Carson
Including your belief that they all gotta disappear in the end. Obviously.
“Beliefs are beliefs any way you state it. They all gotta disappear in the end.”
Yes! “You come into the world with closed fists and you leave with palms open.” What can possibly be taken to the Point before even origin?
Well said. May it be a reality.
Blessings.
Obviously.
It makes a lot of sense to me to say that enlightenment ‘is a never ending process’. I read somewhere that "enlightenment only puts us in communion with God, but true “yoga” or union with God must be some distance away !
about swamiG
when I first experience my spontaneous kundalini awakening and thought that I was going insane or had a very terrible mental problem…
I went on a search to find out what had happened to me…when came upon a link to kundalini awakening with a link to swamiG youtube video.
was desperate for answers or anything really…since it sounded a lot like what I had experienced… sent email to her and some others but she was the only on who replied
to say that she acted rough is putting it mildly…but i didn’t have no one else to talk to or help me deal with the crisis i was going through so tried to grin and bare it.
then she order me to called her because of a certain phenomena that had happened and did…she sent and e-mail and even call to say how dare i not called her and she wouldn’t believe that i did either cause her phone didn’t show a missed call from me…even after i literally took a picture of my phone showing that the called was made and sent it to her…she never said anything back about it…
am able give you several examples of little things like the one above she did to me.
the one that filled my cup was when one of her sages or maybe she is realize now? don’t know called me to help me with the crisis that third day after my awakening.
well the next day or so tried to called that same person who had helped me to personally express my gratitude.
she didn’t pick up the phone and instead got a called from swamiG and an e-mail asking not to called the sage again! after I explain to her the reason for my called she said well she doesn’t want to talk to you because you energy is too strong? till this day still don’t know what that suppose to mean! and wasn’t allowed to asked her question about it either as when tried she got all upset with me.
but am thankful to her for that first helping hand…so left the group as humbly as possible.
mufads left I think a few days after me.
my opinion on gurus is this they still human beings, one can’t tell to what level of enlightenment they are on…until you either hit realization, get to a point whee you inner self start to question the guru intention/attitude…I belive this is when one has to decide to try a different flavor sort of speak…just as one does with meditation or breathing…everything is unique
everything has the “I” presence of the “I Am” I for individuality as even if one is able to connect with the energy of “THE ONE” one is still not really one until fully integrated back. or like I called it the urge to go back home!
I think swamiG has problems dealing with emotions from a neutral type of place…she is going through a victimhood episode big time as she makes it sound like she is sacrificing for the “group” and need acknowledgment…she has what some people called a classic inner child or lower chakras problem where she is still looking for love, attention, acknoWledgement, from the outside world and not within herself.
she seem to forget that the main rule to the path is to find things that bring you joy. to lived one life doing what makes them feel good inside all the time. as the AM has to channel the love through the I and the I has in some way release or give this love/joy back into the world in whatever way the AM feels like.
at the end it always comes down to tolerance, love, and understanding.
any way this is my perception from the point of understanding I am now.
sorry for the extremely long post…words some times seem to flow out of me.
*edite back into original full msg
seems like a pretty good point of view to me 