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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
[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.
Ok. Materialists neither can demonstrate what’s matter.
[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.
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.
Very good discussion. The few biographic notes about Einstein are especially interesting. Seems like he had his mind elswehere, instead of learning to talk. 
I have the feeling that our early education is what devoids us of creativity and real thinking.
[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 ?
[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 ?”
[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.
[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.
[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
[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.
[QUOTE=oak333;21131]
The only method by which the mind can know itself is by TRANSCENDING itself.
[/QUOTE]
I said before that I agreed with this, but I don’t. How can mind transcend itself, or become something that it is not? It is the self that must transcend the mind and the ego.
[QUOTE=Asuri;21150]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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, science has succeeded in creating EXTENTIONS of the senses, like electronic microscopes etc. This does not change the data of the problem. They still remain SENSES.
IMHO electrons, protons, mezons, baryons, all kind of elementary particles are still GROSS MATTER.
Physics is now exploring the Dark Energy. How can it be classified as matter or not ? I do not know the answer.
You know the recent experiments at CERN, where they are searching for the elementary particle from which all other elementary particles are made. They create such huge energy particles that they fear they can destroy the earth. There are many people stating that. The huge particle accelerator there have to be stopped for a while (the experiment lasts for a few months), officially because of some equipment malfunction but likely because many people feared destruction of the planet. Just search the Internet.
How would you classify that elementary particle from which all other elementary particles are made ? Matter or not ? I do not know the answer.
What is an electromagnetic field ? Matter or not ?
My opinion, right or wrong, is that the further the science goes the further we go into the subtle aspects of matter. Is that “further” closer to pure
consciousness ?
[quote=Asuri;21148] 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.
[/quote]
What people do not realize is that specific tools need to be used for specific experiences. The tools for sensorial expereinces are given and used by everyone. The tools needed to experience the subtler realities are not given. Now, if someone looks in a microscope and expereinces the sight of bacteria not visible to the naked eye, it is easy to ask another to come and see them by ones own eyes. But bacteria were invisible before the microscope was invented. Huge spiritual efforts has been put into the development of the microscope, and now it is available to everyone. Is it too much to assume that similar effort is required to “create” tools capable to expereince the subtle ?
In case of subtler reality, there are no external instruments to enhance one’s vision. The tools are internal, belong to the subtle constituents of the expereincer. To expereince what I expereince you need the same tools I posess. And because people’s individuality and freedom today does not allow initiations like what were performed in ancient times, when human beings were different, you can’t borrow my instruments, but you need to aquire your own. How it is done ? By practices similar to yoga. In fact, yoga is perfectly usable, if one knows what one’s doing - and to know that, one needs a guide, a master, who actually is able to witness and follow the disciple’s development, not only in an external way, but directly, through his/her higher abilities.
So, it is not that simple as taking the microscope and watch the bacteria than go on with your other businesses, a simple satisfaction of curiosity. Enlightment changes one’s life forever.
Note that I am not claiming that I am enlighted.
[QUOTE=oak333;21167]
You know the recent experiments at CERN, where they are searching for the elementary particle from which all other elementary particles are made. ?[/QUOTE]
Just to further on my post:
- I was writing about Higgs bosons. They give mass to all elementary
particles.
http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae304.cfm
- I was writing about the recent experiments at CERN: