|
|
| 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
|
|
| |
OBEs, Spiritual Arrogance, etc
