Confused: Chakra opening / awakening / activating?

Spirituality
#48

Well, as Asuri said, depends on what we call matter. If one goes far enough, anything capable of changing is “matter”, and there is no way to know the eternal.
But you see, one who has spent a lot of times searching, reading, thinking, meditating on these things, one learns to read between the lines.
I know how the materialist thinks, because I have been one ! And because of this, we are not even, because I have been there where they are, but they have not been here, where I did arrive, yet. I had to realize that one’s mind, and way of thinking can change, and will change. Thus, if one wants ceirtanty, one must transcend what we call thinking. It is not enough to admit this intellectually, but one must realize personally the limits of his thinking. So it is not enough to just throw thinmking and intelligence away, because they are not eternal. Why ? Because no matter how rich on’es suprasensible expereinces are, without intelligence and the ability to think clearly, one will not be able to translate them to the language of the sensorial mind in a comprehensible fashion. Than how can someone be of any benefit to others, those, who are not capable to expereeince it themselves ? How can someone awake the interest in it ?

Because of this, I never think in terms, This is true so That cannot be. Rather, I seek how they can be both true ? Because from one’s point of view, one is always right ! The problem is not if someone is right or not, but how ? Today, we are not satisfied by answers, we want to arrive to them through understanding. We need to sort out the various points of views and show how they are coming togheter, to show that certain views are determined by their own angle and might correctly describe reality form that angle. What I try to demonstrate, that materialist thinking is just one point of view, and because of that, a reduction, something less than the whole.

#49

[quote=Asuri;21053]The term “Prakriti” means more than simply material nature. Prakriti is the name given to the primordial root or origin of the material universe. In the Samkhya system, Prakriti is said to consist of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas. These are pervasive throughout the myriad manifestations of the material world, hence the use of the term Prakriti to mean the whole of material nature.

The presence or absence of the gunas differentiates Purusa from Prakriti. Purusa is not composed of the gunas, and is said to be without attributes. Its substance is said to be that of light, which some interpret as consciousness. Others, myself included, interpret it as intelligence.

Some day I will get back to work on my website and make this information more easily available. Briefly, buddhi is the function of ascertainment, ahamkara is ego, and manas coordinates the instruments of cognition and action.[/quote]

There are teachings, phsilospohies, and there are human beings. A philospohy is good to the measure of it’s aplicability and results. In fact, a philosphy must not be true, it is enough to seem true, and take one from a certain position, to another one. Than it has done it’s job.

#50

Well, the spirit and energy (shakti) manifest as matter. All your material achievements derive from these two combined.

Just scroll down to: The Act of Creation

There are lots of variants of the Samkhya system. Many involve some version of Siva and Sakti, in which Prakriti is worshiped as the mother goddess or Sakti, and Purusa is worshiped as the male principle or Siva. This system is believed to have originated in Indus Valley Civilization that preceded the Vedic culture of India. It does not include the pantheon of Aryan nature gods and goddesses of the Vedic religion, but were assimilated into it. Samkhya was later distilled into a coherent system of philosophy by Kapila.

According to this system, both Purusa and Prakriti are pre-existing and eternal. Creation happens from the conjunction of the two.

It seems that Catholicism added the mother principle to Judaism, which only recognized the male principle as god.

#51

[QUOTE=oak333;21065]Maybe even an ardent materialist will recognize how he made…one table, as an example.

First he had in his mind the idea. Second he had to use shakti (energy) to really make the table. Third he admired his creation-the table.

This seems to be the general model, from the creation of the universe to the creation of the table.

I have here a quip of myself: As is the atom, so is the universe. In fact this quip seems to be true, as posted in the Hinduism and Quantum Physics.[/QUOTE]

Indian philosophy in general has theories of causation that include both a material cause and an instrumental or efficient cause. In your example, the wood used to make the table is the material cause. The idea and the action are instrumental causes. Prakriti is the ultimate material cause of everything, like the atoms. In the Samkhya version, creation is from passion (or desire), which is similar to the shakti of your example. The similarities of these systems demonstrates the widespread influence of this philosophy.

Samkhya also views man as a microcosm of the universe.

#52

Incidentally, it seems that the Catholic church adopted a version of the mother principle, and added it to Judaism, which only recognized the male principle as god.

#53

[QUOTE=Hubert;21070] What I try to demonstrate, that materialist thinking is just one point of view, and because of that, a reduction, something less than the whole.[/QUOTE]

My brand of materialism is different from western science in that I accept the existence of a self that is not material in nature. But I’m also different from the non-dualists, who say that the material world is illusion, that it arises from the non-material or spirit, and that god or spirit is the only reality.

#54

Good enough for me. I think we went far enough to know each other better, and far enough from the subject of the thread. What I think important to mention, that chakra acivity can be expereinced if one practices, and because of this, it is really not that important to question their nature. One needs not to believe in them to expereince them, though a certain openness surely helps.

#55

Surely many feasts, and elements of christianity can be traced back before Jesus, and christianity succesfully adopted the local traditions.
The problem I see with todays churches is not that their dogmas are wrong but that they cannot satiate the thirst for undertstanding of their followers. I mean, a priest should be a seer, an enlightened person and not a placeholder for the spiritual, not an admisnistrator, and bookkeeper.
In the time of Jesus, even that of the apostles, christianity was not a religion, but living truth. Since than it became an organization, it married the state … and while it is still a keeper of the Scripture, it really does not comprehend it anymore. It is natural that many reject christianity today, because it’s exoteric form makes little sense for an intellect yearning for comprehension. It’s a fact that the church in it’s strugle to keep the original heritage intact, has been weeding out any intellectual interpretation on the charge of gnosticism. And a lot has been lost in the process of translation of the Gospels. I hate to admit this, because this is the main argument of many who try to highjack the Gospels to their purposes. Still, what the Gospels are, is literally true, but it requires interpratation, and who could do it if not a person who has gained mastery in the reading of the Akashic Record, someone to whom the truth is revealed directly ?
The Gospels are seen even by the curch, grown itself materialist, as hystorical relatations about Jesus … while in fact they are not ! They are actually descriptions of the initiation of their writers, culminating with John’s Revelations, what presentd great truths and wisdom on humanities past and future evolution in imaginations. (which, in spite how it sounds is more accurate than what our ordinary language is capable of)
With this I end; do not believe me, one must follow it’s conscience, I only stated what I have grown to accept as truth because it makes sense, and not becuse some emotional weakness or lack of intelligence. With a lot of learning, concentration, mind you. Truth is not simple and it is not easily attained … those who say it is, are either naive, or actually irresponsible.
I also must state that the wisdom what gives sense to the Gospels, does not reject or contradict any ancient tradition or teaching … it gives justice to every one of them, even makes them to shine in a new light, that of understanding. It should never be, Buddha or Jesus, yoga or christianity, because everyone is right. Even science is right in its practical results, only the main theories are pure fantasy. Thats the beauty of it, that it works in spite of its crazy theories … just like yoga.

#56

[QUOTE=Hubert;21070]Well, as Asuri said, depends on what we call matter. I.[/QUOTE]

By matter people understand what they perceive with their senses. But how are the senses acting ?

One clear example of the sense delusion is the theory of relativity of Einstein.
He shows clearly how are senses are deceived, how we measure incorrectly the length and time… His “mind experiments” are well known.

#57

[QUOTE=oak333;21119]By matter people understand what they perceive with their senses. But how are the senses acting ?

One clear example of the sense delusion is the theory of relativity of Einstein.
He shows clearly how are senses are deceived, how we measure incorrectly the length and time… His “mind experiments” are well known.[/QUOTE]

Just have fun with Einstein’s mind experiments.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/exp/gedanken.html

Note how your mind and senses can deceive you.

#58

Ok. Materialists neither can demonstrate what’s matter.

#59

[QUOTE=panoramix;21129]Ok. Materialists neither can demonstrate what’s matter.[/QUOTE]

What really does it mean “to demonstrate ?”

I think to demonstrate means to accept, by way of logics, a certaiin thing
(math theorem, fact, whatever). But automatically this process of logic demonstration is nothing else than an acceptance of the mind of another thing created by the mind. But the mind created the notion of matter, imbued in your subconscious since your childhood. Then how can you “demonstrate” something based on the same thing ?

In my opinion, there is a kind of “psychological theory of relativity.” The mind
cannot know itself at the level of the mind. Just as the same with the “inertial systems of reference” of Einstein. They inertial systems of reference are equivalent.

The only method by which the mind can know itself is by TRANSCENDING itself.

A rough analogy: a farmer in a village cannot know the world unless he gets out of his village.

#60

I agree.
Our subjective perceptions converge and there is a tacit/unconscious agreement called objective fact. So, any attempt to determine what matter is would ultimately be a fallacy.

#61

Very good discussion. The few biographic notes about Einstein are especially interesting. Seems like he had his mind elswehere, instead of learning to talk. :slight_smile:
I have the feeling that our early education is what devoids us of creativity and real thinking.

#62

[QUOTE=panoramix;21129]Ok. Materialists neither can demonstrate what’s matter.[/QUOTE]

Let us analyze the “demonstration” of a simple fact.

How do you “demonstrate” that the leaves of a tree are green ?

#63

[QUOTE=Hubert;21139]
I have the feeling that our early education is what devoids us of creativity and real thinking.[/QUOTE]

Could we call our early education “conditioning ?”

#64

[QUOTE=oak333;21119]By matter people understand what they perceive with their senses. But how are the senses acting ?
[/QUOTE]

You are referring to gross matter, the definition of gross being that which can be perceived by the senses. It isn’t necessary to demonstrate things that are common experience. But we know that there are subtle things that do exist that aren’t ordinarily perceptible, that must be proved in order to be accepted as fact.

The Samkhya say that matter is that which is constituted by sattva, rajas, and tamas because they perceive that they are pervasive in nature. Of course this has to be considered just a theory, or a working model. They said that they are the substances of which all things are composed, like protons, neutrons, and electrons. There isn’t really a simple explanation for what these things represent, and the Samkhya version is different from what you will find in the Bhagavad Gita, for example. But it is necessary to understand this concept, if you want to understand yoga philosphy.

The theory kind of loses its relevance when you start to get into physical sciences, but to me, it’s helpful in understanding the human psyche and the evolution of human conscousness.

#65

[QUOTE=oak333;21131]What really does it mean “to demonstrate ?”

I think to demonstrate means to accept, by way of logics, a certaiin thing
(math theorem, fact, whatever). But automatically this process of logic demonstration is nothing else than an acceptance of the mind of another thing created by the mind. But the mind created the notion of matter, imbued in your subconscious since your childhood. Then how can you “demonstrate” something based on the same thing ?[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Scientists demonstrate the reality of subtle matter by making it perceptible. We cannot perceive atoms, but we can perceive a nuclear explosion. We can’t perceive electrons, but we can perceive that the light turns on when we flip the switch. Proof simply by logic alone is the weakness of ancient systems, because it’s possible to reach false conclusions that are perfectly logical.

When we demonstrate something by experiment or statistics, we are demonstrating its objective reality, not a mere concept. Patanjali talked about this natural confusion of word, concept, and the underlying object.

In my opinion, there is a kind of “psychological theory of relativity.” The mind
cannot know itself at the level of the mind. Just as the same with the “inertial systems of reference” of Einstein. They inertial systems of reference are equivalent.

The only method by which the mind can know itself is by TRANSCENDING itself.

A rough analogy: a farmer in a village cannot know the world unless he gets out of his village.

I agree except for one point. It is possible to have knowledge of something without having direct experience of the thing. I’ve never been to Paris but I know it exists.

#66

[quote=panoramix;20840]Thanks to both for the references!

So, could the followings be signs of an awakened chakra?

  • To fuzzily feel the chakra trigger point.
  • To feel a whirl of prana revolving around (the chakra).
  • To be capable to unleash a huge pranic discharge in the chakra at will, a kind of bodily ecstasy.

Thanks again.[/quote]

1&2 look familiar.I experience it particulalry on one side of the face,noticeably the cheek( pranic currents) but more recently the whole head in meditation, but also pranayama.I sometimes feel it in the waist on one side. My inner guru suggests to me this is pssible re-balancing of the energy body.It feels like a mild subtle current felt more or less on the surface of the skin, in terms of location.This tends to chime with my own theory that i may have bockages on one side, the ida left-handside side. As for 3 well i’m not too sure about that one-how you could do that unless you did XYZ practices with resultant effect(s) or were some kind of an adept who could control his engy body at will.

Another point also-This is where is maybe gets a bit more hazy??- i’m not too sure i thought i’ve imagined rainbow coloured discs when lying in savasana a few years ago ( yeah i have also heard since then that getting each one to spin individually at their own correct frequency is desirable),but i’m still not entirely sureif that was autosuggestion (on the basis of what i had perhaps read) .But the enrgy currents,tingling sensatioons,fuzzy feeling ont he surface sound pretty familar and i try to encourage it durinig M & P. One tends to be more absorbed int he physical body in asana to maybe notice unless one is holding the posture maybe for some time.As i say i rarely practice asana.

I don’t practice asana much although last occassion i did so ,i experienced a lot of activity lying in savasana between rib-cage and navel.This sounds like manipuraka activity to me,assuming you wish to entertain such an idea.City of jewels manipuraka stands for ,and represents creativity,will-power,ambition etc.

We could look at the chakras as roundabouts of a road system map,hence the emphasis on their focus,the need to clear them.But there are other nerves as part of the subtle nervous system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nadis.gif

The initial Q in the title of this thread sounds to me like a play with words or degress.i.e Relatively synomous. And also - all yoga systems seem to converge at some point or in some area both historically and interms of the practices contained within, be it indian,hatha,kundalini,tibetan( there would appear to be i believe geographical reasons why the tibetan traditions evolved separtely from say the indian tradtions–the vastness ,relative seclusion and inaccessibility of the Himlayas )Nath,raja,buddhist etc

:slight_smile:

#67

[QUOTE=Asuri;21148]You are referring to gross matter, the definition of gross being that which can be perceived by the senses. It isn’t necessary to demonstrate things that are common experience. But we know that there are subtle things that do exist that aren’t ordinarily perceptible, that must be proved in order to be accepted as fact.

The Samkhya say that matter is that which is constituted by sattva, rajas, and tamas because they perceive that they are pervasive in nature. .[/QUOTE]

Yes, I was referring to the gross matter, not to the gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas)

Actually you made a good point here: the division between gross matter and subtle matter.