|
|
| I just read the post from Empress Echo on OBEs and was a bit surprised by some of the responses. Unfortunately, the tread was hijacked after a couple of pages and responding there seemed somewhat pointless. Still, I feel compelled to offer a few thoughts on the matter. My hope is that by starting a new thread we can re-open the discussion.
I have absolutely no opinion whether or not someone is actually experiencing an OBE. I am secure enough in my own spirituality that I do not need to minimize another's experience or claim that mine are greater. However, the point was made that OBEs have nothing to do with yoga. I'm not so sure I agree. If we are talking about hatha yoga then maybe, but yoga as a whole, and meditation specifically, provides exactly the setting for an OBE.
Ok, here is where I begin to draw some fire. I have been chastised here before for using the "S" word, but yes, I am going to use it again. Science. I know, I know... for years and years non-christian spiritualism has had to view science as a tool of the establishment. It's just not that way anymore. In the last ten years or so the prevailing path in science, and I guess I mean physics, has come to not only embrace spiritualism, but has actually found a certain synergy with the more mystical schools of thought. If I may...
It was mentioned that the point of yoga, and I think it was implied at least that this was the spiritual side of yoga, was to bring one's focus on what is. What we have found is that in many ways what actually "IS" is limited by our own expectations. All "reality" is nothing more than our mind filling in the blanks. Our brains react in exactly the same pattern to memories as they do from current experiences. Which is real? Certainly our memory cannot be real as we all know how unreliable human recollection can be. Still, to us, it is reality. The "brain synapses firing etc" is the same regardless. Reality, it would seem, is the sloppiest form of mental masturbation.
What of meditation? Is not the point of many types of meditation to achieve stillness? Mental stillness, physical stillness, spiritual stillness... Stillness. Demon science tells us in that all too famous and misunderstood equation that all energy is dispersed among two opposing planes: Time and Space. The more energy we devote to one, the less energy is devoted to another. This is why we cannot exceed the speed of light. If all of our energy is devoted to moving through time (speed) we would cease to exist in space. There are countless real world experiments that verify this concept. The opposite is also true. If we were to achieve absolute stillness through time we would indeed occupy infinite space. Of course, it is impossible to achieve true stillness while we are hurtling through space on a big ball of dirt, but the closer we come to stillness in our minds the more space our mind would occupy. Perhaps what some consider OBEs are merely a process of achieving enough stillness of mind that one is able to glimpse a space beyond the norm. This would not only be theoretically possible, but would almost seem a logical conclusion from stillness achieved in certain types of meditation. Likewise, achieving greater stillness through space would allow one to occupy more time. Since time, for us, only goes from now backwards it makes perfects sense that one could occupy enough time to glance back to a point where the presence of loved ones can once again be felt.
Granted I have not travelled to India to study with Gurus, nor have I sat on a Tibetan mountain top with Lamas, and yes, I did have the misfortune to be born in America, which somehow makes me spiritually inferior to some, but one of the first things I learned on my own yogic journey was to set my ego aside. I do not know if Echo truly experienced an OBE, but I do not feel threatened or offended by her believing that she did. I do not feel the need to minimize her experience or to convince her that the only way to understand it is to look in the yellow pages under Mystic Sage and find one who is truly qualified to discuss the matter. Does that show up on a resume? If, after all, one can only understand such an experience by first having it and then learning the path from a handfull of trained guides then there must indeed be little hope of growth. After all, these select few must have learned from a prior generation of select few and so on back in time. The problem is that if you go back far enough it all started with one person who learned it from no one. I am in no position to say that this first Mystic Sage was certainly more powerful and more aware of the subtle nuances of an OBE than say, Empress Echo.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| Interesting post, Steven. As far as science goes, I know that Stephen Hawking says that the more we learn about quantum physics, the closer we get to God. So western ideas of science and spirituality are definitely moving closer together, as they have been in the east forever, as I understand it.
As for OBE's, there is a short article in the current Yoga International that mentions them. It doesn't really answer Echo's question but it does talk about their validity as a spiritual experience. The way my limited knowledge of yoga philosophy goes however, is that OBE's, like astral travel, levitation (which the TM folk are heavily into) and all other siddhis, they are ultimately a distraction on the path to union. Now, since most of us live lives that are waaaaay far distracted from the path to union and are counting on the promise of multiple lifetimes to achieve that lofty goal, I think it may be worthwhile for some of us to spend a lifetime or two exploring where phenomena like OBEs will lead. It is probably a much more "yogic" distraction than say, sex, drugs and rock and roll or stamp collecting or whatever. So it isn't exactly true to say that they have nothing to do with yoga, but I suspect a serious yogi would say they are a distraction and not to make them the focus of one's spiritual quest IF one is intensely pursuing the Ultimate in this lifetime. This is the way I understand it, anyway. Seriously cool stuff! Very 60's 
Edited by tourist 2005-06-09 11:18 PM
| |
| | |
| I absolutely agree that science and spirituality are moving closer together, though I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of "Western" science. The tremendous advances in quantum theory over the last hundred or so years would not have been possible without the contributions of great minds from India, Japan, and all over the East. We are probably at a point now where science is global.
I don't believe that the sliderule crowd had much choice but to move in a more spiritual direction as quantum theory began to unviel a universe so full of magic and possibility. Granted, quantum theory is just that... theory. Until they come up with a TOE it's nothing more than the universe as we understand it right now. But even still, as we begin to develop better methods of experimenting and testing the more ethereal aspects of these theories, the more magical the world appears. Time being related to speed is hard enough to get one's mind around, let alone the idea that one thing can actually be in two places at once. And yet, now we are faced with the proven reality of just such a thing. Beautiful. Amazing.
As for OBEs as distractions, I would probably agree. I think. At the very least the pursuit of them certainly would be a distraction. But then again, in many ways the pursuit of anything is a distraction. Going back to the fundamentals are we not taught to set our egos aside and release ourselves from expectation? Should we not try to avoid marrying ourselves to any particular outcome? Expectation is the ultimate attachment, and therefore the ultimate distraction. It should not matter whether that expectation is stillness, an OBE, or the ability to dismiss / ignore an OBE. Actually, just sitting here a light sort of came on. If, indeed, we limit our reality by our expectations, then the ancient wisdom of releasing ourselves from expectations would also release us from our limited reality. Just a thought. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Tsaklis - 2005-06-09 9:04 PM
Should we not try to avoid marrying ourselves to any particular outcome? Expectation is the ultimate attachment, and therefore the ultimate distraction.
I think this is a good point. The way I think of it is to not be attached to an outcome but to follow the well-trodden path laid out over the centuries by other (more enlightened) seekers. I have a bunch of crazy analogies running around my head for this.... Imagine the bunch of us plunked down in the middle of a jungle with all sorts of paths and ways out of our little clearing. Some of us will choose the obscure paths, some will undoubtedly decide to make their own, "better" path and some will go down the broad path led by the wise guru who appears with a lantern and tells us this is the safest, surest way to get to the golden city. None of us actually expect to arrive there in this lifetime, but we all choose to make the journey. Some will find a little oasis on the way and be distracted and stay there, some will find wild animals and may or may not have the tools and skills to fend them off. Some, of course, will find the magic mushrooms and stay with THAT special little distraction 
So what I am trying to say, I think, is that we need to believe that the outcome we are told to seek (but not expect) is the Ultimate Reality. It exists outside our normal understanding of what reality is and that it is not any particular goal but perhaps the only goal.
OK - way too much first thing in the morning! My brain is tired already  | |
| | |
| I guess this is where our views begin to diverge. I do not want to seem as if I disrespect the many truly great spiritual leaders. This is not the case at all. I just believe that try as we might, we all walk our own path through this life. Walking exactly in the footsteps of another, eating what they ate, saying what they said, wearing what they wore, meditating when they meditated... I would not evolve exactly as they did. I still see the world through my own experiences and expectations, I still think with my own mind and feel with my own heart. I'm not suggesting that we all just wing it. The path is before us. I just don't see it as being so clearly marked.
To use your anaology, let's say that we all have indeed been plunked down in the middle of the jungle. We would all see many paths going in all directions. Some obscure, some well worn. Sure, there would be those who set off to blaze their own trail, searching more for the glory of having their own trail than any actual destination. However, as I see it there would not be one with a lamp, but several, with many different lamps, all coming from trails both worn and new. All claiming theirs is the path to salvation. Pick a diety, pick a salvation, and follow along. Yet, to me, there is the old one sitting on a stone quietly. When asked which trail to follow he only smiles and says that to reach the "golden city" one must go north until you reach the river, and then follow the river upstream. But what of his path, had he not been to the city? It does not matter. He walked his path many years ago and it has now grown over. In truth, it makes no difference whether you go right or left around a particular tree, nor does it matter which side of the river you walk along as you go upstream. Each course will provide it's own share of wonderous sites, thorns, quicksand, etc. Which brings me to my real point.
I know that you used the "golden city" euphemistically, but the very idea that there is a goal to be reached is steeped in the type of linear thinking that has bound mankind spiritually for so very long. In our little analogy I would be inclined to think that North would mean a way of seeing the world. By walking north we learn to see our place in the universe. We learn to set our ego aside and become free from the attachments to material things. We learn to treat others with love and kindness even when our egos think them beneath us. Progressing along in this manner we would indeed eventually find ourselves looking out at the river of humanity, Siddhartha's river, if you will. We would see time flowing past us. We would see the rush of billions of lives in their ceaseless, mindless journey to be emptied into the great sea of time. How tempting it would be after such a long walk to simply dive in and let the current carry us away. But instead, following the advice of our sage, we choose to walk upstream. To me there would be no "golden city" to reach. We would walk along far enough that we no longer expect to see the gates of a city. We would, at long last, lose the all too human need for reassurance that our path is correct... that there is some reward. In that moment we would find our true selves. We would see that the path itself was the golden city. We would have lived lives that were giving and kind and free of materialism and the need to best someone. We would have transcended the river and truly walked upstream. We would have evolved. And, having evolved, what would we do? Would we return to the seeker's drop off point, carefully mapping our path and marking it for others? Would we reach the drop off point, lantern in hand, eager to lead the next group? No. We would sit quietly on a stone and wait for someone to ask, and then we would smile and say "To reach the Golden City one must travel north to the river, and then follow the river upstream". | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I just want to pipe in and say that OBE's are a major distraction. This is how it has been taught to me. I have always been told to avoid it, not get attached to it, but yet acknowledge it for what it is, another words embrace it but don't dabble in it if you will. It is just phenomena that will pass.
All the great Masters from various lineages whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, or whatever have stated that you MUST have a guru to lead you on the spiritual path. These OBE's and various types of distractions are the very things that having a guru is all about...and to put everyone in the same category as far as the experience goes is also wrong as everyone is different.
I know ya'll have a problem with guru's and the personal relationships and all that, but after all the things that I've been through in this Western world, the lack of authenticity and lack of knowledge period, I do believe in the guru relationship and why it is so needed when you are on this kind of path. Doing the Yoga Asana's is only a mere part of the experience, I call it my physical part, but in all reality, Yoga is about Union...Union with every little thing that happens. In the beginning, some people might experience so much that they think they can't handle it, and usually they don't because it is so powerful and not understood. Then you may reach a level where you get somewhat comfortable with that experience and then your ready for the next round, taking you even deeper in the rabbit hole...this is really how it works if you can understand what the heck I'm talking about. Being exposed to a guru can certainly take away all the self doubt, give you answers that you need and so on and give you the GRACE you need to survive it and experience it to the level of Ultimate Reality or Realization. You are not going to get this from being on a forum and it is something that cannot be explained by writing it down. It is something that you get from a transmission from your guru..when you get it, you don't put your questions out to the world on a forum..you receive the answers and you don't question it. If you do question everything and have self doubts then you are not truly practicing yoga. Anyway, I'm not saying these things to offend anyone's practice, I'm only stating my truth. My exposure to my guru's has been a wonderful experience and a challenge too!! The first thing you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities, otherwise you will miss the boat. If you want to be scientific about this, then you might miss the boat there too. I have found that simplicity is a very valuable tool in my Yoga practice  Some things just don't need to be answered and need to be left alone.
Tsaklis, what you said about the path not being clearly marked...well, to me that is the scary part and why I quit treading on those kinds of path's where I refuse to just wing it anymore - been there and done that. Again, that is why the guru is there to show us the way...you just got to be open and willing to accept one.
This is a PERSONAL experience and that is the real beauty of ALL of it! I always think of the other humans having their personal experience and the bottom line is that one day the whole entire human race will be enlightened...talk about hope, and then talk about is there hope?? I say Yes, there is.
Back to lurking.....but something tells me we are getting ready for a major discussion again, LOL!!
Edited by Cyndi 2005-06-10 2:09 PM
| |
| | |
| Wow. Steven, you are a truly wise man, and I must confess to being quite in awe of your words. So much so that I've got to just sit with them awhile. I'd like to leave you with a verse from one of my favourite songs - the original is in Italian, but as I don't know if you speak the language I'll just translate!: And I shall wait for the sunset
some time the wind must pass.
I shall let myself be carried
to where the words are born.
I shall look for your words,
I want to bring them back to you.
| |
| | |
| Cyndi... I must respectfully disagree with nearly everything in your post, I'm afraid - but such is the nature of humanity, isn't it? And for you and I in particular, I think we're destined to have this go-round. I almost omitted saying anything at all, but I suppose forums are for discussion, aren't they?! That said... I am assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong...) that you come from a Buddhist or Hindu background, since that seems to be your most common frame of reference; I come from a Catholic one - and I believe that our history influences our current thought, in however small or large a way, despite our willingness (or lack thereof) to open our minds to different paths and ideas. Does your application of the guru extend to other peoples' belief systems? Or do you say that your way is the only way? I truly mean no disrespect in this, but sincerely ask. You said, "The first thing you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities, otherwise you will miss the boat. If you want to be scientific about this, then you might miss the boat there too." But isn't this a contradiction in terms? I can't help but wonder if you yourself are opening your mind to all of the possibilities, if you will discount science and following your own path (with or without a guru - how about a priest or shaman or imam or even L. Ron Hubbard?) Or do you accept that these can be gurus as well? I really am somewhat confused by what you've said. Just for the record, I never sought out OBE's - they just came to me, and I felt it my duty to learn about and from them. I don't specifically associate them with my religion or my yoga practice or my scientific beliefs, but I do believe that all of these things come into play together. This is simply my opinion on the subject. In closing, I do feel that I must ask - do you say that I am ignorant and wayward in going as I will on my path? For despite your words to the contrary, this seems to be what you imply. I do feel judged - and perhaps condemned by you. It doesn't really bother me, if such is the case, but I had to get that out there - I don't like to play games and I'd rather not have that unspoken thought between us. I'm honestly confused by what you've said & seek clarity, if that's possible. Respectfully yours, Echo | |
| | |
|  Thank you for the kind words EE.
Edited by Tsaklis 2005-06-10 4:52 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Actually, a priest is a guru in respect to his or her religion...in this case, I am referring to the Yoga practice which came from Asia. As for Catholism, or whatever religion, it doesn't matter - I am very familiar with it and since I was raised as a Southern Baptist, I am equally familiar with it as well! but, since we are speaking in terms of Yoga..I was and am referring to the Guru/Student relationship which is traditionally followed in the Hindu, Tibetan and Oriental Culture.
Having that said, I have NEVER heard of anyone being able to intelligently discuss and leave with a straight answer or one that didn't tell you that you were evil or going to hell, regarding an OBE or similar subject, with a Catholic Priest, a Babtist Minister or any other western religion with the exception of a spiritual leader from Wiccan or a New Thought type organization - and that is even limiting due to their lack of experience. In fact, most religions here in the US would think you were demonically possessed if you were to raise the subject. If you find one that would discuss it with you, I think it would be interesting to hear what they said about it, but I think I already know. I watched how my Southern Baptist Minister in the 70's handle this subject and it wasn't very uplifting or nice...it was very degrading to say the least. But as far as my extension to other belief systems..I have no problem with it, I just don't think it supports that kind of level of expertise relative to an OBE..I'm sorry. The reasons I chose my path was because of the lack of support and knowledge that these churches including the New Thought ones, have regarding not only this subject of OBE's but many other questions that could never be answered because of lack of knowledge. If you want a guru relationship from a Catholic priest, I have no problem with that, I'm just saying it is limited to what you originally posted about having an OBE...do you want answers or do you want your questions stuffed under some Minister's rug because he doesn't have the answers for you?? Or better yet, he might tell you that you are a witch, or an evil person for dabbling in such notions.
Anyway, I'm not going to debate this subject because I do not think you are ready to hear what I have to say because you are still investigating and shopping. Not to mention this is not the appropriate place to talk about this subject. I am not saying you are ignorant..never did I say that, and I'm not judging you for where you are in your level of understanding..I was actually cautioning you about the avenue you were going on regarding an OBE being glamourous, fun or frivilous. I told you to go seek someone who was authentic about the subject so that you could get answers and to help you with this personal experience that you were having. A person that is truely on a path and truely having these experiences as far as authenticity goes...doesn't go around talking or bragging about it...they seek to find the truth about it from an authentic source which is where most of us who have been doing Indian types of Yoga, are at. I cannot stress enough to you that this is a PERSONAL experience and should be treated as very sacred...not broadcasted to the entire world...otherwise you dilute it, it becomes powerless and you loose it.
I'm sorry you feel condemned, please don't take it so personal. I care about what is happening in the world and I hate to see this nonsense that goes on in the areas of New Thought and these people that go around channelling other spirits and all the BS, is crazy and just lacks so much integrity and not to mention how un-authentic it is. So, all I can say now is Be Careful and Best Wishes to you on your journey. I sincerely hope you don't get wrapped up in anything that may harm you. I hope you find someone that can give you the right answers..the truth. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Oh, so much to discuss here! Steven, yes, I absolutely agree - the path IS the destination, certainly And I like your guru better than mine because he is, as Cyndi says, not bragging, shouting out that he has THE answer or in any way trying to infulence the outcome of your journey unless asked. I think the best gurus are like this. They do not ask for followers, they just do their practice and they share the teachings as is their duty and the followers are attracted by the guru's own inner Light. I am told also that most of the very best gurus assign tasks and studies to their students but never "mark" the papers or fill in the blanks. Each student is led toward their own discoveries through their own practice and reflection. I have been told that Swami Sivananda Radha was a master at posing the question with no right answer, making each student delve beneath the quick and easy answer or "technically" correct answer and get much closer to the core of their central beliefs. I love hearing stories about her but in many ways I am glad she is not my guru - it sounds like VERY hard work! So yeah, the good guru gives you the directions but,like a patient parent, just walks behind and lets us run back and forth with our questions and discoveries as we proceed along the trail. Oh gosh - that just brought back such flashbacks of walks with my kids when they were little! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Cyndi - the idea that one can achieve enlightenment without a guru of some sort is puzzling to me as well. If you consider yoga as an art and/or science, as the serious yogis do, you have to have a teacher, don't you? Consider dancing, for example. Many of our friends are amazed at how much practice and discipline it takes to do ballroom dancing yet admire our (limited) ability to do it. Yet they have the impression that because there are rules and form and set steps, it is limiting as a form of expression. "I like to just go out and move to the music and freely express myself" is the sort of comment we get. Yeah. Well. Watch a bunch of people with no dance training "express" themselves. Most of us found 3 or 4 moves sometime back in highschool that we figured we could do without looking to stupid and aside from one line dance we learned in the 80's that is the limit of our "expression." And except for the rare individual, this applies in all the arts and most definitely in science. So why do we think that in spiritual matters, probably THE most important aspect of our lives, we can go out and shake our booty to our own tune and have it come out ok? A little arrogant, yes?
OK - that was a bit of a rant, eh? Who knew that was all pent up inside me here.... So yes, you might have some bad experiences, as you did (and learned whatever lessons you needed to learn), but finding SOME sort of guide was still important for you and now that you have a guru you can be true to your path and yourself in the best way. With help! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Echo - I think Cyndi was just repeating what I said. In yogic terms, most yoga masters would say to acknowledge your OBEs (and maybe even explore them and learn from them) but not get so caught up in the phenomena that they become your whole reason for being. Which by the sound of you, I don't think would happen anyway. And although people can be pretty cynical about Catholic priests, I think many of them are genuine seekers and a few great ones could be wonderful gurus. There is a great deal of mysticism in the Catholic faith and I think we are sometimes too quick to dismiss it. I doubt that a good priest would say you were possessed in this day and age (we aren't talking Southern Baptist - a whole other story!) and I would be curious to know what a liberal, forward-thinking priest would say about OBEs. | |
| | |
| YES, Tourist! There is a whole lot of mysticism in the Catholic Church. I believe the Catholic Church is practicing magic right under our noses every Sunday and every Holiday. The thing is, it seems like we have to find the magic on our own. It's very powerful. Catholic mysticism is quite connected to Kabbalistic magic. Same source I guess one could say.
Interesting, I'm 1/2 Asian and I know in some Asian-based traditions there's lots of info kept "secret" (and we have some of the best "stuff"!).
Lots of gatekeepers out there... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Tourist, Thanks for the Damage Control Seriously, if anyone thinks they can go on a spiritual path by themselves, go for it. There are several Masters that did it..Krishna was one that did not need a guru. But, that was very rare and the incarnation of who Krishna really was what made it happen that way. If we think we can achieve enlightenment on our own, and we are not ready, prepared, capable or whatever, we better be **** sure we can handle what we encounter. The Yoga path has been known to be like a "Two-Edged Sword". Any ideas about what that may look like?? I sure would love to "sugar coat" it, but that would be a lie. Based on my experiences, when you uncover your ego and the truth...even a tiny little portion of it, I hope and pray for you that you have a compassionate enlightened being at your side to aid you in your recovery of your experience. That is called the "Grace of the Guru". If you can't relate to what I said, don't bother trying to disagree, one day you may just have the opportunity to experience what I'm talking about and then you will have to eat your words..save your energy for when you really need it - you will need it. May you always be blessed and best wishes for your journey.
Tourist, as for Catholism...we already know how the church feels about Yoga...you honestly think they are going to change their stance on it because of that new pope?? I don't think so. They may just start doing an exorcism though...I'm only joking!! You can reach a certain level with any faith or religion, but just remember this...all path's lead to the same goal..some are just more skillfull about the process. Don't forget that quality factor and you may have to get off the boat and onto another one to reach your goal. Afterall, it is a personal matter and we do have a choice in today's world about where we want to be. Mostly, our choices are put directly on our path and we see it instantly and welcome it with open arms...Some of us want to run like h#ll!!! I happened to have been the one to run like h#ll!!! from the church that is....and I have welcomed my guru's and have cursed them too at the same time, As Bikram would say,"the truth is most bitter thing in the world and we spend all of our lives hearing lies to make ourselves happy, only to discover the truth and hate each other, because life isn't the way we thought it would be. We go to yoga to learn the truth". We stay here not because we like the truth so much, but because it is something that we can resonate and live with, it may not be all peachy, but at least we can live with it...that is the real beauty of the Yoga Practice:~)
Edited by Cyndi 2005-06-10 8:17 PM
| |
| | |
| "A woman once came to Mahatma Gandhi with her little boy. She asked, 'Mahatma-ji, tell my little boy to stop eating sugar.' 'Come back in three days,' said Gandhi. In three days the woman and the little boy returned and Mahatma Ghandi said to the little boy, 'Stop eating sugar.' The woman asked, 'Why was it necessary for us to return after only three days for you to tell my little boy that?' The Mahatma replied: 'Three days ago I had not stopped eating sugar.'" - Ram Dass, "Be Here Now" You've all raised some very interesting points, and I need some time to absorb it all. My personal philosophy - or goal, if you will - is, To Love, To Learn, To Dream, and To Live. This is what I believe to be my purpose. I would learn from your words, and before I respond to what I've read here I need to do a little learning myself. I'll be back! Namaste, Echo | |
| | |
| Cyndi,
Spiritual matters are touchy discussions in the best of circumstances. When one person chooses to contort the words of another to further their own position, well, it becomes untenable. Let's try to limit the discussions to what is actually said.
As for gurus, I do not recall saying that they had no purpose. In fact, I have not seen a single post in this thread or the original thread by EE advocating "winging it". The comments in my original post about looking up Mystic Sage in the yellow pages was not an idictment of you or the guru / student relationship. It was a humorous (evidently you missed that) attempt to point out the fact that not everyone has access to a guru. Certainly not everyone has the means of determining the "real deal" from a charlatan. And even if they did not everyone has the financial wherewithall to travel the path as you have. There are many different types of guru / student relationships. In the first few posts here tourist and I exchanged views using a jungle scenario. In my response I made several very obvious referrences to a person who can only be seen as a guru, as well as referrences to several charlatans. I'm sorry if you missed that as well. I've read through this thread again just now and honestly, I do not see one single post disparaging the role of guru. I absolutely cast doubt on the process of qualifying as a guru, but the role itself is invaluable. Anyone foolish enough to pass up an opportunity to learn from one who is wiser deserves to rot in his / her ignorance. My only problem here is that I have never met anyone that I honestly believe has finished the spiritual journey. I have certainly met many who are farther along on the path than I in this area or that, and I have absolutely requested their mentoring. If you truly believe that one person absolutely possesses every bit of spiritual knowledge you will ever need to achieve enlightenment, and you believe that this person is in your life right now then you are truly blessed. Indeed, is it not true that Empress Echo, in her original post, was seeking a guru to the best of her ability? Granted, none of us here are true gurus in the manner of your own advisor, but it was fairly clear to me that this woman was seeking the counsel of those further along on the path. Of course she could have easily gotten bad advice, a bad guru, if you will, on an internet forum. But is that any more likely than seeking a guru in the real world? If one does not have the means to travel to India and lives in a remote part of the spiritually bankrupt U.S., is she then simply out of luck? Sorry, no spiritual growth for you, Missy, you can't afford it. Hardly seems loving and charitable, now does it? And even if she did have the means to seek out a "real" guru, would she be any more able to distinguish truth from fraud in person than she would online?
Moving on to the OBE issue.... I did read the article Yoga International that tourist mentioned. Quite frankly, it seemed a bit silly to me. Maybe I am "missing the boat", but the idea that someone can arbitrarily categorize OBEs into five neat little pockets is laughable. In truth, what EE sees as an OBE may not in any way resemble the experiences of you, or jean, or anyone else. We do not, can not, know another's experiences. As I said much, much, earlier in this thread, before your first post in fact, I do indeed believe that pursueing OBEs is a distraction. Again, I read every post in both this and the previous thread and I am not finding a single one that recommends pursueing OBEs as a path to enlightenment. Honestly, I do not understand why you attack this issue so.
This brings us to the real demon, science. It's funny, really. If we had engaged in this conversation ten or even five years ago I would have agreed with you completely. At that time I too saw man's incessant need to understand the universe as an obstacle to truly understanding anything. All science seemed crass and vulgar and spiritually lacking. But, as physics evolved so did I. But as you said before it is pointless to tell someone something that they are not yet ready to hear...
Honestly, Cyndi, I do believe that you have many important things to say. I am certain that you are a very intelligent, profoundly spiritual person and I would love to hear more of your ideas and experiences. I just wish that you would not approach every discussion as a personal challenge to your entire belief system. Much of what you say would seem infinitely more reasonable were it not preceded by acknowledgements of your audience's ignorance or claims that you are so much further along on a given path that someone should not "even bother to respond" if they do not agree with you. These are not the words of a spiritual being. These are the kind of tactics children use to control other children. One points out everyone else's flaws, states their own opinions, and then summarily dismisses any objections, all to cover his or her own insecurities. It is a way of building one's own self-confidence not by raising oneself up, but by attempting to lower everyone else. This is hardly conducive to genuine growth.
"I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people's houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave."
Mahatma Gandhi
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Okay Steven....BTW, just for the record...my son's name is also Stephen...he's 20. So, this conversation is getting really interesting wouldn't you say, LOL!!
Anyway, I really don't have much to comment about your last post, but I did want to ackowledge that I did read it.
What I do have to say is this....I have never stepped foot out of US soil - except to Tijuana, Mexico....nor do I have an elaborate Financial Pocketbook as you seem to refer to (my son is in college and wants to study law - so all my $$ goes to him), and there is no need for me to travel, although I probably will soon...there are plenty of reputable guru's right here on US soil. Now, my exposure to Asian culture has been very vast and extreme considering I've never left this country...and I probably have more exposure than most people, but you have to know this...It is my karma...my karmic connections is what has brought me to this place. Its not about money or travel. I barely have spent any $$ on my studies and anything else. Now, that's not to say that I haven't donated several thousands to the cause helping certain Tibetans and the fact that my husband is Nepalis/Indian Sikh, that is not the point....The point is that you don't have to travel to Indian territory to study Yoga or find a guru. Besides, the original conversation here which is what led to the guru/student topic was that anyone who was having these OBE experiences should seek out someone who is experienced and that can lead you down a safer path, rather than going to the scary places...that's all. I'm not going to comment about my experiences relating to this subject as it is private and is left for the seeker to discover from his or her master...IT IS A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
Your comment about never meeting anyone on a higher level of spirituality is kinda strange considering how there are so many here around us...and they are here. In fact there is one on this forum..never met him in person, but I know him and I know who he is just in a few postings. Oh well, I don't need proof, if I did, I would not be where I am today because I'd be too busy with that distraction, but I really don't want to argue Science, I do not care about Science because it is not my goal.
No one has ever said anything like if you can't afford to travel to India you can't have spiritual growth..never has that been said. If that were true, guess I'll have to toss everything to the wind and just die!!
Anyway, this concludes my comments about this subject. Steven, I think you and I have had these discussions on other related topics before and I really don't have time to nor the interest to debate with you. You don't have to agree with me either, I'm not asking you to..Don't accuse me of being controlling, because you are wrong about that - totally!! That is your perception and until you can distinguish between reality and what your thinking, don't say things like that to me. I don't have a pesonal challenge nor an agenda here, I really don't care, I just state facts a little differently that you do. Soo, you should learn how to be more tolerant of people like me and just because I don't lay the facts down like an American Scientists would, doesn't mean that I'm ignorant and stupid either. I live a life of simplicity and that is the way its gonna stay.
Take care and have a blessed day:~) | |
| | |
| Cyndi,
I'm not sure what to say. Honestly, I just logged on here to delete my last post as I felt that I had responded to immaturity with more immaturity. Unfortunately I was too late. I must say that I was quite disappointed to see that once again you chose to change my words. I really do not seek a confrontation with you, and I only respond to your last post so that my words can be my own.
For starters, I made no judgement of you and your wealth. I stated that EE did not live in a major metropolitan area, had not the means or desire to fly. This is all drawn from previous posts by EE. Seriously, please stop internalizing everything.
I also did not say that I had never met someone more spiritually advanced than I. To make this claim demonstrates that you either struggle with comprehension of the English language or are simply looking for insult and creating it where none is found. My exact words...
"My only problem here is that I have never met anyone that I honestly believe has finished the spiritual journey. I have certainly met many who are farther along on the path than I in this area or that, and I have absolutely requested their mentoring."
Do I not say that I have met many who are farther along on the path? Do I not say that I have sought the counsel of those individuals? The only negative I use is to say that I have never met one who I believe is FINISHED on the spiritual journey... meaning one who has achieved spiritual pefection. It is hurtful and mean to continually accuse me of saying things that I simply did not say.
I have actually met several here who I believe are further along on the journey. Unfortunately, this site is not particularly conducive to a mentoring relationship, but I certainly have made a point of reading as much as I can from two or three members here. All of whom, I am sure, would be telling me right now that defending myself against your constant mischaracterizations is without merit.
Believe what you want of me, Cyndi. Just please, stop being untruthful about what I say.
| |
| | |
| I'm sorry, i keep looking for empress echo's original post on her out of body experience and i can't find it. EE, could you paraphase it? i've had them too, i'd be interested to know how they've come to you. when i first had mine it was after a very strenuous week in highschool, i'd been studiying for exams, preapring for the end of the year and practicing for a dance concert. One morning before dance class we were lying down lestening to our heartbeats ( myteacher was big on teaching teens how to cope w/stress) and fuum! off I went. it was bizarre and exhilarating. i'd be lying if i told you all i didn't want to experience that again.. I also understand that designating your OBE the "golden city" itself can be a trap. but what a wonderful way to experience, to have proof, that your daily existence is not all there is. If effectively started my journey. | |
| | |
| Hi Siren, Here's a link to my original post: http://www.yoga.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19006&start=1 Perhaps I'm naive, but I am truly surprised at the way these two threads have gone, and the way the discussion has veered here and there. My original post, my original query, was really quite simple: I've had OBE's - has anybody else? And yet... here we are! LOL I never really detailed my experiences - they are personal, and over and over I've said that I consider them sacred to me. But... I think my original intention in posting it has gone a bit awry. I suppose that is always a risk in any sort of public forum, however. At any rate, that's the link to the original - if you'd like, feel free to PM me & I'd be happy to discuss it further with you. (I'm still thinking about all that's been said on this thread before I respond more publicly!) Namaste!
Echo | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Steven,
The last thing that I want to do is to disturb you or your practice. So, having that said, I am truly sorry that I misread your statement about you meeting more spiritually advanced persons and directing that comment towards you personally. I try to respond based on one individual's statement or comment then I admit, I have this tendency to take it a a few steps deeper and generalize relating to the subject at hand. I'm really sorry that you took it personally, it was my fault, but I just want to clarify that because I did make that mistake. I won't however take my words back because of the general point I was trying to convey. Sorry, you got caught up in the crossfire. Take care,
Cyndi | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Echo,
I think you are heading in the right direction by taking this privately with someone who can relate to you. There are all sorts of books about "Acension" and "OBE"'s in the metaphysical realm if your interested and sincere about learning it. A gentlemen that I once knew, Gary Bonnell wrote a really interesting book about "Acension", if you can still find it. Good luck to you.
Cyndi
Sorry, I can't seem to spell Acension or Ascension right now...but I think you know the word, LOL!!
Edited by Cyndi 2005-06-11 5:54 PM
| |
| | |
| Actually Cyndi, I've read some quite good books on this subject. But thank you for your recommendation. I'll look into it. I did want to respond to your comment about the Catholic Church and yoga. You wrote: Tourist, as for Catholism...we already know how the church feels about Yoga...you honestly think they are going to change their stance on it because of that new pope?? I don't think so. ... but do you really know? When I posted what I did last night I was quite serious about thinking things over & doing a little research. I contacted a priest and had a little chat with him about the Catholic Church's stance on yoga and OBE's (not that they are necessarily related). His answer is that the Church is not against either. He said that, as yoga is not a religion, it does not interfere with my own; as for OBE's, the Church does not have any official stance on them, but their advice is to "recommend caution about jumping to any major conclusions [about them]" - with which I happen to wholeheartedly agree. Cyndi, I don't know where you got your information about Catholicism & yoga, but in this instance it's quite off the mark, and I feel compelled to defend it. As for me, I'm really not seeking advice or guidance at all right now; nor am I seeking "enlightenment" (I really don't know how that got put out there!) I just wanted to ask if others here have had similar experiences. Anyone who reads this is free to reply or not, in as much or little detail as they wish. A few people have contacted me privately and that's fine with me too; I just threw out a topic and had no inkling when I did of what sort of response I'd get. As I mentioned earlier, I was quite surprised by the somewhat impassioned reaction to it. Anyway, Namaste to you! Echo :)
Edited by Empress Echo 2005-06-11 10:52 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Empress Echo - 2005-06-11 10:49 PM
I did want to respond to your comment about the Catholic Church and yoga. You wrote: Tourist, as for Catholism...we already know how the church feels about Yoga...you honestly think they are going to change their stance on it because of that new pope?? I don't think so. ... but do you really know? When I posted what I did last night I was quite serious about thinking things over & doing a little research. I contacted a priest and had a little chat with him about the Catholic Church's stance on yoga and OBE's (not that they are necessarily related). His answer is that the Church is not against either. He said that, as yoga is not a religion, it does not interfere with my own;
Ooooo... you should see what Pope Whathisname XVI said about yoga back when he was
defender of the faith or whatever it was. I posted this once before, but here it is again:
~~~~~~~~~~
Vatican Warns About Zen, Yoga VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican Thursday cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can ``degenerate into a cult of the body'' that debases Christian prayer. ``The love of God, the sole object of Christian contemplation, is a reality which cannot be `mastered' by any method or technique,'' said a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, approved by Pope John Paul II and addressed to bishops, said attempts to combine Christian meditation with Eastern techniques were fraught with danger although they can have positive uses. The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which [may] involve prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, ``caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods,'' the document said. But, it said, such practices ``can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.'' The document defined Christian prayer as a ``personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God.'' Such prayer ``flees from impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut, imprisoning the person praying in a spiritual privatism.'' Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are ``not free from dangers and errors,'' the document said. It expressed particular concern over misconceptions about body postures in meditation. ``Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. ``Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations.'' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Vatican's watchdog body for doctrinal orthodoxy. The document did not name any particular individuals, groups or religious movements that have strayed in the use of Eastern meditation practices but the congregation often acts in response to complaints. AP-NY-12-14-89 0937EST (C) Copyright 1989, Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
| |
| | |
| Wow - thanks for posting that, BG! I think that's fascinating. I'll have to run this over with my priest friend. What he told me is that as long as I don't view yoga as a religious practice, I'm fine. Really, I think this article says that as well, don't you? It doesn't condemn yoga, only cautions about mixing it up with prayer... I've got to print this one out. Do you mind if I ask where you found it? Honestly, I don't know a lot about Pope Benedict XVI, though I recently ordered a book about him. Like many Catholics I know, I use the teachings of the Church as a guide, not a form of absolutism. I disagree with some of the teachings - the birth control issue comes to mind - but I agree with most of it and am quite comfortable with my religious practices. Anyhoo, thanks for the post! Hugs, Echo
Edited by Empress Echo 2005-06-12 1:47 AM
| |
| | |
| Hello Tsaklis,
I like disclaiming that my posts sound harsh but it is not out of bad intention. The message gets across more clearly in this way.
"Ok, here is where I begin to draw some fire. I have been chastised here before for using the "S" word, but yes, I am going to use it again. Science. I know, I know... for years and years non-christian spiritualism has had to view science as a tool of the establishment. It's just not that way anymore."
Please avoid stereotyping in this fashion. For one thing it seems like Christian spiritualism has always been in favour of science, whilst others have been opposed to it. In fact, it is Christianity that has been far more opposed to scientific advance than any other tradition (the Eastern traditions for sure, but also Islam and so on).
Furthermore, you have to understand the difference in terminology between spirituality and spiritualism - they have very different connotations and yoga has nothing to do with spiritualism.
"It was mentioned that the point of yoga, and I think it was implied at least that this was the spiritual side of yoga, was to bring one's focus on what is. What we have found is that in many ways what actually "IS" is limited by our own expectations. All "reality" is nothing more than our mind filling in the blanks. Our brains react in exactly the same pattern to memories as they do from current experiences. Which is real? Certainly our memory cannot be real as we all know how unreliable human recollection can be. Still, to us, it is reality. The "brain synapses firing etc" is the same regardless. Reality, it would seem, is the sloppiest form of mental masturbation."
This is not the position of science (in general most scientists are very much realists and not idealists), let alone that of yoga. You cannot redefine yoga and then say that say that things are compatible with it.
"What of meditation? Is not the point of many types of meditation to achieve stillness? Mental stillness, physical stillness, spiritual stillness... Stillness. Demon science tells us in that all too famous and misunderstood equation that all energy is dispersed among two opposing planes: Time and Space. The more energy we devote to one, the less energy is devoted to another. This is why we cannot exceed the speed of light. If all of our energy is devoted to moving through time (speed) we would cease to exist in space. There are countless real world experiments that verify this concept. The opposite is also true. If we were to achieve absolute stillness through time we would indeed occupy infinite space. Of course, it is impossible to achieve true stillness while we are hurtling through space on a big ball of dirt, but the closer we come to stillness in our minds the more space our mind would occupy. Perhaps what some consider OBEs are merely a process of achieving enough stillness of mind that one is able to glimpse a space beyond the norm. This would not only be theoretically possible, but would almost seem a logical conclusion from stillness achieved in certain types of meditation. Likewise, achieving greater stillness through space would allow one to occupy more time. Since time, for us, only goes from now backwards it makes perfects sense that one could occupy enough time to glance back to a point where the presence of loved ones can once again be felt."
This is pseudo-science, nothing scientific about this. Science says nothing about the relationship between mental stillness and mental spaciousness. According to modern science, mental activity is a brain process. So basically if the brain is slowed down, literally the brain gets bigger (and unless there are relativistically significant changes in speed, this change is size is basically unexistent). This is completely irrelevant to meditation unless one makes an enormous metaphysical jump.
What you say is not science. If you are going to try to explain yoga in terms of science, then at least you should use correct science.
You are making things too complicated. OBEs if they are not realy, then they are basically hallucinations. We are not trying to promote hallucinations. If they are real, then they are a travel in some other realm and proper yogis have always said that this only gets one bound to samsara with this kind of practice, it is very much a hindrance to Samadhi. It also accumulates more samksaras. If you are a materialist, you will not accept any of this, but at least do not confuse your ramblings for yoga.
Look, OBEs may be good, bad, medium, whatever. Its not really my concern. Since we are on a yoga forum, I thought that it would be appropriate if the position of the tradition would be presented. Why can't you just say "I disagree with the yoga position" instead of trying to redefine yoga to make yourself a yogi?
Regards. | |
| | |
| belovedofthegod - If they are real, then they are a travel in some other realm and proper yogis have always said that this only gets one bound to samsara with this kind of practice, it is very much a hindrance to Samadhi. It also accumulates more samksaras. Hi Beloved I'm not even going to get into the science issue, because frankly, I don't understand a lot of it! (Though I do try!) I did want to ask you about some of the terminology you used - can you tell me what these words - samsara, Samadhi, and samksaras - mean? Are these terms strictly related to the practise of yoga or bound to a religion? I do try to learn from all around me, and appreciate your input! Thanks!
Echo | |
| | |
| Oh boy. Here we go again. My friend beloved I have not disclaimed a single word of my posts. I have only asked that they be read as written, and not twisted into something completely different and then shoved back at me. I wrote what I wrote with no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't an attack on anyone or anything, so it is nothing I would disclaim or in any way regret. There is one post in the thread that I do regret and I mention later that I had hoped to delete it, but this is not the post you quote. I really do not know if it is my style of writing but for some reason a few people read a great deal more into my words than what appears on the screen. What troubles me is that in many cases what is read into the words is a direct contradiction to the words themselves. How that happens I do not understand. At any rate, I have responded to your post below. You do make one valid point and I agree completely. As for the rest....
"Please avoid stereotyping in this fashion. For one thing it seems like Christian spiritualism has always been in favour of science, whilst others have been opposed to it. In fact, it is Christianity that has been far more opposed to scientific advance than any other tradition (the Eastern traditions for sure, but also Islam and so on).
Furthermore, you have to understand the difference in terminology between spirituality and spiritualism - they have very different connotations and yoga has nothing to do with spiritualism."
I did not stereotype at all. Your point that Christianity has been far more opposed to scientific advancement is EXACTLY what I was saying. For centuries Christianity, primarily via the Catholic Church, exercised a stiffling hold on all scientific advancements for fear that knowledge would encourage doubt within the masses. People were burned at the stake for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe simply because a non-earth-centered universe implied that God did not create man as the center of all creation. My comment about non-christian spiritualism probably should have been stated as "belief systems not dominate by the catholic church", but other than that it holds true. At least in the western world the church used it's version of science, among other things, to discredit most other forms of spiritualism. What exactly is your point again?
As for the difference between spiritualism and spirituality, your point is not lost. I was not referring to the practice of yoga specifically in that paragraph. Rather, I was referring to the fact that I had been criticized for even mentioning science in other discussions. I don't think I was making any claims at all about yoga in that paragraph. I agree whole-hearedly that yoga has nothing to do with spiritualism. The paragraph you cited does not mention the word "yoga" at all. It does not even make any allusions to yoga. If you see one, please let me know.
"This is not the position of science (in general most scientists are very much realists and not idealists), let alone that of yoga. You cannot redefine yoga and then say that say that things are compatible with it."
Your first statement is debatable at best, my friend. The point of that paragraph was to say that our brains fill in a big chunk of our experiences based upon expectations, and in that manner our expectations frame our reality. I wasn't aware that there were many scientists out there who would question that statement. There are countless studies out there proving that everything from what we see, to what we read, to what we remember is constantly being filled in by our brains as a result of memory and expectation. Are you really claiming that this is not the case? As for the religious practices of scientists, I made no claims one way or the other on that. Please point out in the paragraph you quoted where you see me having done so.
As for the second part of your statement, I have done absolutely no such thing as redefining yoga. The word "yoga" appears twice, both in the first sentence, which was paraphrasing your post in another thread which stated that the point of yoga was to focus on what is. The rest of that paragraph does absolutely nothing to redefine yoga. It merely demonstrates that what "is" has a lot more to do with what we expect than most people would imagine. This is why the second sentence says "What we have found is that in many ways what actually "IS" is limited by our own expectations.". That doesn't redefine yoga. It doesn't even mention yoga. It redefines what "is". The rest of the paragraph works off of that second sentence, does it not? The entire point of that paragraph was to broaden the definition of what "is". Please point out how you come to see that paragraph as redefining yoga.
"Science says nothing about the relationship between mental stillness and mental spaciousness. According to modern science, mental activity is a brain process. So basically if the brain is slowed down, literally the brain gets bigger (and unless there are relativistically significant changes in speed, this change is size is basically unexistent). This is completely irrelevant to meditation unless one makes an enormous metaphysical jump."
This particular comment of yours refers to my statements about the possibility of expanding either time or space through meditation. You are absolutely correct in stating that this is not accepted by modern science. It is strictly theory and I say that several times. I made no claim whatsoever that it was scientifically proven. Science has indeed proven the relationship between space and time to the point of redundancy. The metaphysical jump of which you speak, and I actually think that term is accurate, rests in the belief that consciousness is more than just electrical impulses. This is where we open up an entirely new can of worms about meditation. Your comment about the brain getting bigger if it slowed down is correct as worded but incorrect, I think, as intended. Slowing the activity in the brain would have no impact whatsoever on it's size. Slowing it's rate of travel through space would. I am assuming you meant the former. When you speak of the brain in terms of time and space you are speaking of a physical object, and it's rate of activity would be irrelevant. My metaphysical jump was that in some forms of meditation we try to focus our energy on, literally, nothing. Achieving nothingness. Occupying as little space as possible with our consciousness. While slowing the brain processes would help in that endeavor, I do not see the physical object of the brain and it's electrical activities as the sum of our consciousness. If you do then we simply disagree on principle. If you accept that our consciousness is more than just a few electrical storms in the old grey matter, then it only stands to reason that this counsciousness must occupy some space somewhere in the universe. Either way I think you are correct in pointing out that this paragraph was not scientific in nature. I should have been more clear that this was theory and not science.
"What you say is not science. If you are going to try to explain yoga in terms of science, then at least you should use correct science."
What I said, with the exception of the theoretical paragraph on meditation, was indeed science. Proclaiming it not to be does not alter the truth. I must point out, however, that I made no claim that I was even ATTEMPTING to explain yoga through science. This post was about one small sliver of experience that happens to both yogis and non-yogis alike. It was about OBEs. That's all. Ok, OBEs and one paragraph about meditation. I am not being at all sarcastic when I ask you to please, please explain for me how you reach the conclusion that I am trying to "explain yoga in terms of science". I mean really, that's a great phrase... very powerful. But it just isn't accurate.
"You are making things too complicated. OBEs if they are not realy, then they are basically hallucinations. We are not trying to promote hallucinations. If they are real, then they are a travel in some other realm and proper yogis have always said that this only gets one bound to samsara with this kind of practice, it is very much a hindrance to Samadhi. It also accumulates more samksaras. If you are a materialist, you will not accept any of this, but at least do not confuse your ramblings for yoga."
Ah, this is what it all really boils down to, isn't it? My friend, I have no idea what OBEs are, really. There are so many different types of experiences that fall under the OBE umbrella. It is impossible to categorize them all as one thing. If you want to pretend that you KNOW these are all hallucinations, well... ok. I won't challenge that. How can I challenge a belief? But I will say again, for what is, I believe, the third time now in this thread, that I have done NOTHING to promote OBEs. I have said on at least two occasions in this thread that the pursuit of OBEs is absolutely a distraction. But... if you want to believe that me repeatedly saying that the pursuit of OBEs is absolutely a distraction constitutes me promoting them, well.... again, you are free to choose your own beliefs. It's just a bit odd, that's all. Zero statements from me in the thread promoting OBEs, multiple statements discouraging the pursuit of OBEs,... eh, ok.
As for your comments about my being a materialist, I would disagree. But then again, those statements were based on the belief that I am promoting OBEs. Around and around the wheel goes.
Seriously my friend, it is not my place to challenge any person's beliefs. I will say the same to you that I said to Cyndi. Believe whatever you choose. Just please don't twist my words to fit your arguements. If you take exception to what is actually said, that's one thing. If you are correct, and in one case you were, I will readily admit my mistakes.
Edited by Tsaklis 2005-06-13 12:23 AM
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy,
That is indeed a very intersting document. I should start off by saying that I am not Catholic or Christian in any way, so I have no personal investment in how the church is portrayed. Honestly, though, I must confess that as creepy as parts of that document feel, there is more than a grain of truth in there. I have met more than a few yogis, both students and instructors, who really have no concern whatsoever for any spiritual benefit from their practice. It is purely a function of physical health. Actually, that is not accurate. It is, to some, more a function of physical appearance. Now, I will grant you that most of these were people I met in gyms so it is probably not an perfect slice of yogadom. Still, I think it is fair to say that for some yoga does become part of a "cult of the body". I cannot say that yoga promotes this, so much as it functions as a tool in much the same way that a Hindu or Buddhist might use yoga as a tool on his or her spiritual journey.
On a lighter note, there are a number of sites out there from, presumably, the far-right which detail the spiritual risks and dangers of practicing yoga. Everything from psychotic episodes to eternal ****ation seems to await those who dare to step on the mat. They can really be quite funny if you forget for a moment that these people really believe what they are saying. For whatever reason it seems the Kundalinis take the most hits from these groups. Just another example of how small-minded some people can be. It is as if the very fact that someone disagrees challenges their belief system to it's very core. Funny, I haven't heard any reports of yoga instructors lurking outside of churches trying to entice one of the brethren into a quick Vrksasana. | |
| | |
| Hello Echo,
" I did want to ask you about some of the terminology you used - can you tell me what these words - samsara, Samadhi, and samksaras - mean? Are these terms strictly related to the practise of yoga or bound to a religion? I do try to learn from all around me, and appreciate your input!"
Samsara has always been part of yoga, but it is not vital for practice. Samskara and Samadhi are important for practice. A samskara is usually translated as "latent tendency". It is basically the conditioning that results from any action one performs, the purpose of yoga is ultimately to burn away all samskaras. It is an important topic and we would need a different thread to discuss it properly. Samadhi is in much of yoga, the state that follows dharana and dhayana. The whole purpose of yoga can be seen as attaining samadhi and then practicing Samadhi. Basically it is a state of meditation when only the object of meditation shine forths, of course this is very ambigious and one needs further exposition or else it can be mistaken for a lot of other stages of practice. In Samadhi the mind has to be completely one-pointed. There are several stages of Samadhi with an object of meditation culiminating in Samadhi without object. Also Vyasa (one of the important early commentators in the yoga tradition) says "Yoga is Samadhi".
Hi Tsaklis,
The first part of your post is very, very ironic since you told me that I didn't read your post. If you read my post you would see that I was disclaiming my post, and not yours so that you wouldn't take offence at what I wrote.
"What exactly is your point again?"
You said: " I know, I know... for years and years non-christian spiritualism has had to view science as a tool of the establishment."
Which in context means that non-Christian spiritualism was opposed to science. By saying non-Christian spiritualism was opposed to science instead of saying spiritualism in general, you are clearly implying that Christian spiritualism was different in this respect.
" The point of that paragraph was to say that our brains fill in a big chunk of our experiences based upon expectations, and in that manner our expectations frame our reality. I wasn't aware that there were many scientists out there who would question that statement."
You are softening your stance radically here, before you said "All "reality" is nothing more than our mind filling in the blanks". "Nothing more", that is no longer direct realism, but idealism. Most scientists believe that there is an objective reality and the brain simply cognizes this reality. They do not hold that position that reality is created by the mind filling in blanks.
In any case, this is a purely philosophic and not a scientific issue.
" As for the religious practices of scientists, I made no claims one way or the other on that."
Neither did I.
" It is strictly theory and I say that several times."
Where exactly?
"Slowing the activity in the brain would have no impact whatsoever on it's size. Slowing it's rate of travel through space would."
Well the impulses in the brain, if they can literally be slowed down, would become smaller. If the impulses become smaller, the whole brain would also become smaller, at least massively. Of course this is hair-splitting and rather irrelevant.
"But... if you want to believe that me repeatedly saying that the pursuit of OBEs is absolutely a distraction constitutes me promoting them, well.... again, you are free to choose your own beliefs."
Sometimes you are saying that OBEs are a distraction. However, before you refute the statement that "OBEs have nothing to do with yoga" and state that "yoga provides exactly the setting for OBEs". If by practicing yoga correctly, the setting for OBEs were setup, then yoga would lead to OBEs. However, yoga leads towards the cessation of the mind, whilst OBEs involve lots of additional mental activities.
"As for your comments about my being a materialist, I would disagree."
Please read carefully, I said "if you are a materialist..."
Regards. | |
| | |
| beloved,
Ok, let's start over. I'll begin with an apology for doing exactly what frustrates me so with others. If your remark about disclaiming prior posts was self-directed then I do apologize for internalizing. that was my mistake.
Beyond that I do not understand much of the rest of your second post. You seem to have abonded questioning any points of fact and have now chosen to quibble over semantics. This just seems silly. I will clarify again what I said in my original posts, but it does seem to be an exercise in futility. With all due respect you seem to be argueing this from an emotional standpoint. I recognized that this morning when I re-read your original post. The last two paragraphs seem to be all you really wanted to say, but for some reason you had to spend three or four paragraphs making unfounded statements about my post first. There is no need. If you have a differing opinion simply post it.
"You said: " I know, I know... for years and years non-christian spiritualism has had to view science as a tool of the establishment."
Which in context means that non-Christian spiritualism was opposed to science. By saying non-Christian spiritualism was opposed to science instead of saying spiritualism in general, you are clearly implying that Christian spiritualism was different in this respect."
No. I'm sorry but you are wrong. As I said, science was a tool of the church. It is also impossible to argue against the idea that for centuries non-christian spiritualism was under attack by the church. This does not imply that non-christian spiritualism was opposed to science. During the period of time that science was directed by the church many scientific progresses were made in the east and other areas outside of the church's influence. What I was trying to imply was that there was certainly a time when non-christians had to take anything scientific with a grain of salt simply because of the church's influence. My point was that this is no longer the case. Really semantics and nothing more here. You questioned this statement once and I explained it once. Why continue insisting that it meant something that I have already said it didn't?
"" The point of that paragraph was to say that our brains fill in a big chunk of our experiences based upon expectations, and in that manner our expectations frame our reality. I wasn't aware that there were many scientists out there who would question that statement."
You are softening your stance radically here, before you said "All "reality" is nothing more than our mind filling in the blanks". "Nothing more", that is no longer direct realism, but idealism. Most scientists believe that there is an objective reality and the brain simply cognizes this reality. They do not hold that position that reality is created by the mind filling in blanks.
In any case, this is a purely philosophic and not a scientific issue."
Again, no. You are incorrect in both fact and interpretation. My stance did not soften at all. In fact, I will restate the point again; All reality is the mind filling in the blanks. Your characterization of this as idealism and not direct realism is philosophic rather than scientific. My words are very firmly rooted in accepted quantum mechanics. If, by "scientists", you are referring to clinical cognition researchers then you are reducing the discussion in order to find safer ground. I stated more than once in this thread that by "science" I was referring to physics. Quantum reality is such that all reality is perception. There is a very common example of this that is used in many beginning quantum mechanics classes that Brian Greene illustrates well using chess pieces in his bestseller The Elegant Universe. For what it's worth, Greene, along with being an author, is one of the leading physicists of our time and has been on the cutting edge of string theory almost from it's inception. I will paraphrase his example as I do not recall it exactly and I do not have the book at hand.
Let's say that you have two chess pieces, Kings, one black and one white. You place one piece in a box and seal it. Then, you place the other piece in an identical box and seal that one. Then, you mix up the boxes so that you no longer know which piece is in which box. Now, take one box and mail it to a friend in London. Which piece do you have and which piece is in London with your friend? Your expectation is that you have a 50 / 50 chance of having the white piece. Actually, this is untrue. According to quantum reality you have a 100% likelihood of having both the white and black piece until one of the boxes is unsealed. I know this is hard to get one's mind around, but quantum theory dictates that until the very second that one of the boxes is opened and it's contents are perceived both pieces exist in both boxes. Thus, your friend calls from London to thank you for sending her a white king, and your expectation becomes that when you open your box there will be a black king. Of course, that is exactly what is there. But, had you opened your box first then your initial intuition would have been correct. It was just as likely that you would have perceived a white piece in your box as a black one.
It's weird and it's hard, I understand that. Most people turn away from physics exactly for this reason. What is proveable scientifically is so counter-intuitive that it makes no sense. Rather than try to get their mind around it most people simply shrug their shoulders and elect not to consider it at all. Stop and think about relativity for one moment. The very idea that our shapes change, our time changes, as we speed up or slow down seems inconceivable if looked at intuitively. Yet, it is verifiable. The idea that both pieces could exist in both boxes at the same time is so tempting to dismiss, but now even that concept has been proven. I don't recall the university, but I recall reading that one university's physics lab has actually succeeded in producing an experiment where one object, in this case I believe it was a ball of light, exists in two points within the lab simultaneously. Very, very difficult to accept, but yet here it is.
Now, if all reality is subject to perception, and our minds fill in the blanks of our perceptions based upon expectation, then yes, all reality is truly based upon our minds filling in the blanks.
"Sometimes you are saying that OBEs are a distraction. However, before you refute the statement that "OBEs have nothing to do with yoga" and state that "yoga provides exactly the setting for OBEs". If by practicing yoga correctly, the setting for OBEs were setup, then yoga would lead to OBEs. However, yoga leads towards the cessation of the mind, whilst OBEs involve lots of additional mental activities."
Ok, let me state my position once and for all right here. Are OBEs integral to the practice of yoga? No. Is the pursuit of OBEs a distraction to a traditional yoga practice? Yes. But, yes, yoga, exactly by creating stillness of the mind, can lead to the experience of an OBE.
Look, I am very sorry that my post challenged a few world views. I have to wonder, though, how many of those who are so quick to dismiss the intrusion of science into their traditional yoga practice are out there practing Ashtanga, Bikrahm, Iyengar... etc. Yoga, while still being grounded in it's ancient roots, has evolved over time. The vast majority of asanas in any Ashtanga, Bikrahm, Iyengar, Power, Kundalini... sequence did not even exist in the practice of yoga 100 years ago. The traditional texts only detail a handfull of asanas, almost all of which I believe were seated poses. Perhaps someone such as Bay Guy or another one more knowledgable in these matters can list them. My point is that yoga changed. It evolved to meet the needs of it's practioners and the realities of a then 20th century world. All I was seeking to do in this thread was to open a discussion on OBEs, on whether they could, in some circumstances, have significance. I am still not convinced one way or the other beyond saying that the pursuit of an OBE would be a distraction, if for no other reason than because it creates an expectation.
In closing, my friend, I would ask one question. I am curious about one question in particular that I posed in my last response to you that went unanswered. It means nothing to our discussion and I will not throw your answer back at you either way. It is simple curiousity on my part. Do you believe that the sum of human consciousness is just electricity in the brain?
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I think after reading all of this I'd like to put a gun to my head - UGH!!! This is just way too much information - its scattered, covered and smothered. None of you are qualified to discuss this topic...we need a Swami here, right NOW!! | |
| | |
| uh oh | |
| | |
| {{{SIGH}}} 
I'm sure I must be a complete idiot for even going here, but... off come the gloves... Cyndi, why do you care so much if other peoples' beliefs differ from yours? Have you made yourself morally responsible for all of us? I'm giving this one up, frankly! Regards, Echo | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Empress Echo - 2005-06-13 2:49 PM
I'm giving this one up, frankly! Regards, Echo
What a great idea............ | |
| | |
| I've enjoyed reading Tsaklis', Beloved's and Echo's posts on this matter. They've obviously put a lot of thought and study into their spirituality. I don't see wrong answers here, just exploration...
fifi | |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-06-13 5:34 PM
I've enjoyed reading Tsaklis', Beloved's and Echo's posts on this matter. They've obviously put a lot of thought and study into their spirituality. I don't see wrong answers here, just exploration...
fifi
Exactly. Keep on exploring, Echo. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Steven - what fascinates me about your example of the chess pieces is that is the kind of thinking I remember having when I was quite young. Was it just me or do kid's brains work in ways that are more connected to the way physicists are now discovering the world actually works? I remember thinking the entire world was an illusion created by my own mind, my brother and I "created" the concept of a parallel universe when neither of us was more than 9 years old. Absolutely mind boggling, isn't it? | |
| | |
| tourist,
You are absolutely right. I have had the same thoughts myself. It is quite amazing how, as we age, we need to view the universe as more orderly and absolute. I don't know, maybe it's just because as we age we hone our ability to create expectation. But yes, their is a crushingly innocent beauty to the reality that is beginning to unfold now. The more one reads of the progress being made the more, well, young and innocent one feels. It brings back that sense of infinite possibilities, when the universe was more than just paying bills and wondering if you've gained weight since the last time you wore these pants. And yes, it really does seem as if much of the forward thinking in this area is bringing science toward a recognition of much of what was for a long time considered spiritualism. I wish I were 10 again so I could have a better chance of seeing it all play out in my lifetime.
On a lighter note, and I don't throw this out defensively at all.... if anyone is interested in some reading recommendations on this type of thing just let me know. I have found that it is far from a distraction to my practice. On the contrary, it has reminded me time and again how important it is to live in the moment and release myself of expectations. I know that I probably harp on that one too much, but it's a struggle for me. | |
| | |
| Tourist,
Did you see the movie, "What the (bleep) Do We Know? It's about quantum physics and our thoughts create our lives. Probably out on DVD by now. | |
| | |
| Woow What a nice discussion after long time !1 So sad I couldnt follow this.. But in a way its good.. I could have got shot from all god lovers if I said my point of view about spirituality.. ))
Just kidding ..
Nice thread and Im amazed by the knowledge some of you guys have...
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Steven - just remind me here - you are the former gym rat, weight lifting guy, right? I am trying to imagine this conversation during the grunt fest at the free weights... I suppose it is not impossible but doesn't fit the stereotype. Personally, I am fond of people who don't fit their stereotype and try to be one as much as I possibly can 
fifi - no, I haven't seen it yet but it is on my list
Thushara - nice to see you! How is your injury? Must be better since you are now working on mayurasana  | |
| | |
| Nice to see u again tourist ! Im back to normal.. I had to do some studies and I was very busy .. thats why I was away....
BTW I cant wait without commenting about your new pic.... . WOW.Look so nice...but not soo clear for me to see you.... is this the same tank where Bruce was ?????
Yep I work on Mayurasana and its disapointing me... look forward to your advise on that...
| |
| | |
| I truly have enjoyed this conversation. As known, Im more of an observer here than anything, but I really enjoyed this thread. so much food for thought, so much that I dont have the energy to share and discuss, but I feel like nothing was missed at the same time. Brilliant!
(edited to add: I forgot to mention that I picked and choose who I read from, because some I just dont even read anymore. I REALLY hope I didn't offend anyone with this, but I realised that I would contradict others if I didn't mention, which I agree with in some way too. Oy, now Im just confusing. I better stop now... lol)
Edited by FamousLadyJane 2005-06-14 1:50 AM
| |
| | |
| lol tourist,
Good call. No, there wasn't much talk of anything like that at any of the gyms I've frequented. It was mostly just conversations about protein, mass, oh, and protein. One tends to wind up with a few different sets of friends.
As for the stereotype, I always enjoyed not fitting the mold. I was never really huge like some of these guys. I never benched more than 325 or 335, but I was big enough that most people immediately assumed I had the IQ of a Milk Dud. It's nice to be underestimated sometimes.
Edited by Tsaklis 2005-06-14 9:17 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Hi Thushara - no, that is definitely not the same tub as Bruce's. His is, I presume, in Texas where he lives and mine is in my backyard way up in Canada I had to make the photo small to fit on the site.
I won't comment on mayurasana - it is far above my skill level! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Tsaklis - 2005-06-14 6:14 AM
As for the stereotype, I always enjoyed not fitting the mold.
I couldn't agree more! I have always enjoyed the expression of surprise on someone's face when they discover I do something out of the ordinary. I was not keen to be a type cast suburban mom (a "soccer mom" before the term was invented) but in fact I have found it to be a delightful disguise for some of my oddball activities | |
| | |
| "Ok, let's start over. I'll begin with an apology for doing exactly what frustrates me so with others. If your remark about disclaiming prior posts was self-directed then I do apologize for internalizing. that was my mistake."
Don't worry, it happens to everyone.
"With all due respect you seem to be argueing this from an emotional standpoint."
This is a very common line on the internet. It never works very well.
" As I said, science was a tool of the church."
Not really, the "facts" were a tool of the church. Science was mostly supressed by the church.
Also, in the east the important names in science and spiritual practices very often match. Spirituality was never against the establishment except for about four centuries.
In any case, having clarified your position I agree it is semantics. Prior to the clarification, it wasn't.
" According to quantum reality you have a 100% likelihood of having both the white and black piece until one of the boxes is unsealed."
This is quite amusing. Shrodinger used the cat story to show how ridiculous the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is. Then its proponents, are going around explaining that this is how things work!
This is precisely what is philosophy and not science. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics (all based from the same results) and these days, the copanhagen interpretation is not very popular. Most scientists prefer the many words interpretation. It also appears possible that both of these are invalidated by the Ashfar experiment. I personally think that Cramer's transactional interpretation is the most reasonable one at this time.
As I said, this is interpretation, not science. People pass it off for science but thats intellectually dishonest. You should research the various interpretations of quantum mechanics in more detail.
"Now, if all reality is subject to perception, and our minds fill in the blanks of our perceptions based upon expectation, then yes, all reality is truly based upon our minds filling in the blanks."
And clearly, this doesn't follow unless one uses the copenhagen interpretation, which is extremely dubious. As I said,you should research the various interpretations of quantum mechanics in more detail. I realize pop-culture likes the copenhagen interpretation because it is so radical, but really it isn't taken that seriously these days...
" I am curious about one question in particular that I posed in my last response to you that went unanswered. It means nothing to our discussion and I will not throw your answer back at you either way. It is simple curiousity on my part. Do you believe that the sum of human consciousness is just electricity in the brain?"
I believe fully in the traditional Vedantic interpretation of the universe. I don't believe in science. However, I understand that many people do believe in science and am willing to speak about it in its own terms,
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2005-06-14 2:11 PM
| |
| | |
| beloved,
Again we disagree. This is old news, if it ever was news at all. Even Ashfar himself has said that his experiment should have little impact on quantum theory. Why would you contradict that here? Cramer's claim that Ashfar invalidated Copenhagen and / or Many Worlds is not accepted much of anywhere save for those who lean toward TI in the first place. This claim is based on using propositions attributed to Copenhagen that are flawed in principle and then using those propositions to ivalidate Copenhagen. The basic premise that a measurement would be taken upon leaving the slit is contrary to Copenhagen, and the presumption that we know which slit the photon exited simply by where it hits the second plane completely discounts such obvious issues as the angle with which the photon left a slit and defraction caused by the grid. If indeed, as Cramer claims, a measurement of any kind takes place at the first plane, upon exiting the slit, then that's the end of the experiment. Once the photon is perceived, whether it be at the first plane (after exiting the slit) or the second (after passing through the grid), it is the first moment of perception that applies to Copenhagen. If Cramer wants to claim that Copenhagen requires perception at the first plane, then insisting that Copenhagen would predict an outcome at the second plane is simply not the case.. Ashfar was a great experiment in optics, but it does nothing at all to disprove Copenhagen. However, Cramer goes a long way to cast a shadow on TI with his claims.
Now, is there a point to quizzing me, or can you just set it aside? When you break it all the way out to a debate between Copenhagen and TI it truly does become philosophy and not science. It seems that some part of you really needs me to be wrong about something here. When you get to the philosophical points it's all about beliefs. Neither of us is going to disprove a belief.
Edited by Tsaklis 2005-06-14 7:05 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | tourist - 2005-06-09 11:18 PM
Interesting post, Steven. As far as science goes, I know that Stephen Hawking says that the more we learn about quantum physics, the closer we get to God.
There are certain not-quite-top-rate physicists who make a living selling this kind of
metaphysical bullsh!t. While I am very sympathetic to Hawking's physical condition,
and while I respect his abilities with differential geometry, I find this assertion to be
utterly specious. Quantum mechanics has never said a thing about the Divine....  | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Tsaklis - 2005-06-10 12:04 AM
I don't believe that the sliderule crowd had much choice but to move in a more spiritual direction as quantum theory began to unviel a universe so full of magic and possibility. Granted, quantum theory is just that... theory. Until they come up with a TOE it's nothing more than the universe as we understand it right now. But even still, as we begin to develop better methods of experimenting and testing the more ethereal aspects of these theories, the more magical the world appears. Time being related to speed is hard enough to get one's mind around, let alone the idea that one thing can actually be in two places at once. And yet, now we are faced with the proven reality of just such a thing. Beautiful. Amazing.
Quantum theory is only "magical" from if you don't follow the math....and nobody uses slide
rules anymore... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Empress Echo - 2005-06-12 1:44 AM
Wow - thanks for posting that, BG! I think that's fascinating. I'll have to run this over with my priest friend. What he told me is that as long as I don't view yoga as a religious practice, I'm fine. Really, I think this article says that as well, don't you? It doesn't condemn yoga, only cautions about mixing it up with prayer... I've got to print this one out. Do you mind if I ask where you found it? Honestly, I don't know a lot about Pope Benedict XVI, though I recently ordered a book about him. Like many Catholics I know, I use the teachings of the Church as a guide, not a form of absolutism. I disagree with some of the teachings - the birth control issue comes to mind - but I agree with most of it and am quite comfortable with my religious practices. Anyhoo, thanks for the post! Hugs, Echo
Hi Echo,
That came from Associated Press...it was forwarded to me by interested others...
Namaste,
BG | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | belovedofthegod - 2005-06-12 11:32 AM
"What of meditation? Is not the point of many types of meditation to achieve stillness? Mental stillness, physical stillness, spiritual stillness... Stillness. Demon science tells us in that all too famous and misunderstood equation that all energy is dispersed among two opposing planes: Time and Space. The more energy we devote to one, the less energy is devoted to another. This is why we cannot exceed the speed of light. If all of our energy is devoted to moving through time (speed) we would cease to exist in space. There are countless real world experiments that verify this concept. The opposite is also true. If we were to achieve absolute stillness through time we would indeed occupy infinite space. Of course, it is impossible to achieve true stillness while we are hurtling through space on a big ball of dirt, but the closer we come to stillness in our minds the more space our mind would occupy. Perhaps what some consider OBEs are merely a process of achieving enough stillness of mind that one is able to glimpse a space beyond the norm. This would not only be theoretically possible, but would almost seem a logical conclusion from stillness achieved in certain types of meditation. Likewise, achieving greater stillness through space would allow one to occupy more time. Since time, for us, only goes from now backwards it makes perfects sense that one could occupy enough time to glance back to a point where the presence of loved ones can once again be felt."
This is pseudo-science, nothing scientific about this. Science says nothing about the relationship between mental stillness and mental spaciousness. According to modern science, mental activity is a brain process. So basically if the brain is slowed down, literally the brain gets bigger (and unless there are relativistically significant changes in speed, this change is size is basically unexistent). This is completely irrelevant to meditation unless one makes an enormous metaphysical jump.
What you say is not science. If you are going to try to explain yoga in terms of science, then at least you should use correct science.
You are making things too complicated. OBEs if they are not realy, then they are basically hallucinations. We are not trying to promote hallucinations. If they are real, then they are a travel in some other realm and proper yogis have always said that this only gets one bound to samsara with this kind of practice, it is very much a hindrance to Samadhi. It also accumulates more samksaras. If you are a materialist, you will not accept any of this, but at least do not confuse your ramblings for yoga.
.
I agree completely. Let's remember that science is not a sticker that you apply
to your favorite stuff whenever somebody who calls himself a scientist says something
polite about your stuff.... oy vey.... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Tsaklis - 2005-06-13 12:42 AM
Bay Guy,
That is indeed a very intersting document. I should start off by saying that I am not Catholic or Christian in any way, so I have no personal investment in how the church is portrayed. Honestly, though, I must confess that as creepy as parts of that document feel, there is more than a grain of truth in there. I have met more than a few yogis, both students and instructors, who really have no concern whatsoever for any spiritual benefit from their practice. It is purely a function of physical health. Actually, that is not accurate. It is, to some, more a function of physical appearance. Now, I will grant you that most of these were people I met in gyms so it is probably not an perfect slice of yogadom. Still, I think it is fair to say that for some yoga does become part of a "cult of the body". I cannot say that yoga promotes this, so much as it functions as a tool in much the same way that a Hindu or Buddhist might use yoga as a tool on his or her spiritual journey.
On a lighter note, there are a number of sites out there from, presumably, the far-right which detail the spiritual risks and dangers of practicing yoga. Everything from psychotic episodes to eternal ****ation seems to await those who dare to step on the mat. They can really be quite funny if you forget for a moment that these people really believe what they are saying. For whatever reason it seems the Kundalinis take the most hits from these groups. Just another example of how small-minded some people can be. It is as if the very fact that someone disagrees challenges their belief system to it's very core. Funny, I haven't heard any reports of yoga instructors lurking outside of churches trying to entice one of the brethren into a quick Vrksasana.
It's simply more evidence of what can happen when belief or group compulsion overrides
rational thought....
...reminds me of lemmings.
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-06-14 10:37 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | *Fifi* - 2005-06-13 5:34 PM
I've enjoyed reading Tsaklis', Beloved's and Echo's posts on this matter. They've obviously put a lot of thought and study into their spirituality. I don't see wrong answers here, just exploration...
fifi
There are no answers in any of this. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | belovedofthegod - 2005-06-14 1:47 PM
" As I said, science was a tool of the church."
Not really, the "facts" were a tool of the church. Science was mostly supressed by the church.
Also, in the east the important names in science and spiritual practices very often match. Spirituality was never against the establishment except for about four centuries.
.
Science, a tool of the Church???!!!! Ever hear of a guy named Galileo?  | |
| | |
| BG, mi amico...! LOL You are definitely on a roll tonight!!! 
Is this from lack of savasana? {SNORT!} (Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)  Buona sera e molto sorrisi a te! Echo
Edited by Empress Echo 2005-06-14 10:50 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
It's my day off of practice, and I'm climbing the walls. I'll go to pranayama in a minute,
that will help.
BG | |
| | |
| Yep, breathing is good! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Pranayama is pacific. | |
| | |
| " Science, a tool of the Church???!!!! Ever hear of a guy named Galileo? "
What, you mean the guy who was forced to recant actual scientific progress or be burned at the stake because the church controlled science at that time? Of course. That makes my point.
I have always respected your posts on here BG, but everything you've put forth tonight is just opinion. Really, I've grown quite tired of going around and around. You folks can state all of the opinions you want now, I'm done with it. Enjoy the thread. | |
| | |
| I tried to edit the last paragraph of my most recent response, but evidently I just missed the thirty minute deadline. Had to walk the dogs, sorry. Anyway, that isn't how I wanted to leave this thread. I left too much unsaid.
BG,
Your comments about Stephen Hawking and his quote posted by tourist were curious to me. It implies that either you know more about quantum physics than does he, which I'm sorry I'm not buying, or that you know more about God than does he. Quite frankly, having never discussed religion with Hawking, I'm not ready to sign on to that one either.
As for this thread in general,
Let's call a spade a spade. The truth of the matter is that the better part of this thread has had nothing at all to do with OBEs, or a debate of science vs science for that matter. As much as I've wanted to believe it to be, it hasn't even been science vs opinion or even a discussion of opinions. From page one this spiralled down into a debate of science vs religion. Impossible. Science brings with it the burden of proof, and even when it does prove itself it can, and often is, dismissed by religion out of hand. Anyone who embraces science must not be embracing religion. Well, at least not the "right" religion. Some scientists are not top rate because only some of their theories fit into my particular religious view. But hey, that's the beauty of religion, isn't it? We all get to feel like we know God. Yes, even me. It's pretty obvious that any discussion here that dares to cross the line will simply be dismissed out of hand by enough people, and often enough, and with enough seeming authority, that anyone who cares to actually open a mind will not even bother. What is the point, really? Any thought that does not directly agree with my exact path is irrelevant and can be dismissed as bullsh!t. I guess I have learned a few things from this trhead. I've learned that this is definitely not the place to discuss anything not directly related to Buddhist / Hindu Philosophy or Buddhist / Hindu Religion. Oh yeah, and I've learned that a few of the people on here who's opinions I greatly respected did not merit that respect. I mistook dogma for wisdom. With that I respectfully lay down this thread. I'll not read or post in it again. There truly is no merit in it. It, more than any OBE, has simply become a distraction.
Namaste | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Steven - I think there were a lot of us following this with interest who would have loved to back up your statements but just were not up to speed scientifically. It is a bit like watching two Biblical scholars arguing using scriptural quotations. Seriously interesting but waaay above my head, for sure.
The interesting thing about the Hawking quote (or paraphrase, really) is that I don't think he has ever said science is capable of proving the existence of God (yet) but that the investigation seems to be leading in that direction. Or perhaps his meaning was that the beauty of the universe the science is attempting to study leads him to believe that God must exist. I just know that from the point of view of a liberal thinking, non-religiously attached seeker such as myself, it is all fascinating. Thanks for hanging in there - I feel reassured that there are people out there thinking about and debating these issues. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Pseudoscience is too often used as a gloss to support spirituality... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Pseudo-everything is often used to support pseudo-spirituality...
Which is why we have chakra balancing t-shirts and swim-with-dolphins tours.
| |
| | |
| Hi Tsaklis,
"Cramer's claim that Ashfar invalidated Copenhagen and / or Many Worlds is not accepted much of anywhere save for those who lean toward TI in the first place."
Cramer was not at all the first to make such a claim and in fact its not only the TIists that accept such a thing. Quite a few CI proponents have also been convinced of this. Remember, I did say it is "possible" that these are invalidated by the Ashfar experiment - my point is that there is contention. The CI is not nearly universally accepted.
Regarding Ashfar's comment, he was partly being modest in part and more importantly, his point is that the numbers aren't changed. Interpretation is something else. Also, often he has said that the experiment has far reaching implications to QM and so on.
"Now, is there a point to quizzing me, or can you just set it aside? When you break it all the way out to a debate between Copenhagen and TI it truly does become philosophy and not science."
The problem is you are passing the CI to be pure science when this is something that the majority of scientists (or at least close to that many) do not agree with. If there is anything interesting to say about Quantum Mechanics for normal people, it has to be interpreted. As soon as it is interpreted, that is philosophy. So what you brought forward is a philosophical view based on the CI. If one doesn't accept the CI, one does not accept reality is nothing other than blanks the brain fills up. If one doesn't accept the CI, the chess piece analogy surely doesn't work.
As I said, your position is not science.
In any case, you agree that OBEs are a distraction to yoga. This is actually all that was being said in the other thread; the "spiritual arrogance" is none other than this. If one wants to practice yoga in a proper sense, then OBEs are harmful to practice.
People don't boycott things unless they are deeply effected by it; please relax, its just a discussion,
Regards. | |
| | |
| tourist - 2005-06-15 11:58 AM
Steven - I think there were a lot of us following this with interest who would have loved to back up your statements but just were not up to speed scientifically. It is a bit like watching two Biblical scholars arguing using scriptural quotations. Seriously interesting but waaay above my head, for sure.
Yeah you said it best tourist.. I was really enjoying this conversation and thought to back up his point of view., but I had no much time and knowledge to explain it clearer like he does., But Great discussion Steven.. I like everything what you said.. I need more time to go through this carefully when I have time.. I love this topic., and everything what everybody said in this thread., I have taken few print outs.. I will go through this later when I have time.
Edited by Thushara 2005-06-15 11:31 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
As you reread it, Thushara, keep in mind that a number of the above extrapolations
from "quantum physics" are being done at the dorm-room level...
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-06-16 9:04 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Tsaklis - 2005-06-14 11:35 PM
" Science, a tool of the Church???!!!! Ever hear of a guy named Galileo? "
What, you mean the guy who was forced to recant actual scientific progress or be burned at the stake because the church controlled science at that time? Of course. That makes my point.
I have always respected your posts on here BG, but everything you've put forth tonight is just opinion. Really, I've grown quite tired of going around and around. You folks can state all of the opinions you want now, I'm done with it. Enjoy the thread.
No, it actually contradicts your point. The church didn't "control" science... | |
| |
|
OBEs, Spiritual Arrogance, etc