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:
We could. Would that be right ? I don’t know. Thanks for sharing the Higgs boson theory. They are honest as they admit that they believe it to be true (not knowing). Usually scientists are pretty clear about this … than the superficial minds come and use these theories to rebuke religion and other things. My respect to scientists, although I often think what their great spiritual efforts would result if directed elswhere ?
[quote=Asuri;21150]
When we demonstrate something by [B]experiment[/B] or [B]statistics[/B], we are demonstrating its objective reality, not a [B]mere concept[/B].[/quote]
Statistics: even a single exception can show how statistics have rather relative than absolute value. No matter how many people say for example there is no such phenomenon as telepathy, I know it is not true, because I have expereinced it. Thus, statistics cannot decide if such thing as telepathy exists or not, but they can only show, that most people did not expereince it. Which is true, but it is not decisive in the matter of telepathy’s existence.
Experiment: the tools for spirtual experiments are not separate from the expereincer. The inability of the expereincer to have an objective, repeatable inner expereince does not prove that such expereinces cannot be had.
Mere concept[B]: [/B]the assumption that thoughts are not real is false. This assumption is built on the difference of the sensorial expereinces, what are vivid, and clear, and the inner expereinces what seem fleeting and arbitrary. They seem so because our consciousness is not able to follow their origin, nature, direction, and purpose. Same thing with dreams. It is a “materialist-sensorial” assumption that they are not real. Compared to sensorial expereinces, and the clarity of thinking what we build on them, our subtler thought and emotional processes pale, thus, we deny their reality. With meditative practices, the rule of our consciusness, our awarness can be extended to these processes. It is an error to deny the reality of thought processes because they happen inside, and we identify ourselves with them. Because of this, naysayers argue that to inner expereinces the requirement of objectivity cannot be applied. It can be applied, if the researcher manages to create the necessary conditions, not identifying him/herself with his/her concepts and thoughts. If one manages to meet the inner requirements of objectivity, clarity, and has a sound methodology, than “inner” spirtual expereinces are just as repeatable and objective as those conducted in the sensorial world.
Those not capable of conducting inner expereinces, because their thought and emotional processes and will impulses are chaotic, will fail to see that such experiments are possible, and will try to seek external proof, in the world to what they are accustomed, but there they will not find proof, because they stubbornly stop at the surface.
I think I have put it clearly, why ordering our thinking, emotional and will nature is a requirement to arrive to inner truths. These inner truths are just as real as the outer ones, if one manages to consciously exert awarness over one’s inner world. And when one arrives to such objective inner expereinces, than one will realize that there is no inner and outer, but behind the outer objects stand the same laws and forces what one learned to expereince in one’s inner world, and one grows to a higher understanding, a “spiritual” reality, one transcending the sensorial, but clearly being it’s originator.
For the ancient indian people, the clarity of their “inner”, spiritual expereinces was greater, the experences more powerful than their sensorial perceptions. Because of this, to them, the outer world appeared as maya, illusion. When you say, mere concept, you actualy being like the ancient indian, but reversed, because to you, and to many of us the inner expereinces are illusion, maya.
I hope these thoughts help, they certainly helped me to clarify my mind.
Thanks for giving the opportunity to reflect on your thoughts.
with gratitude
Hubert
[QUOTE=oak333;21167]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]
I agree with you that all of the man-made sensing devices we have today are just that - senses.
I also agree that the elementary particles described by physics are gross matter. They are not gross in the sense that they can be detected by human senses, they require other devices in order to be “sensed”. The bottom line is that they are physical in nature. Anything in the realm of the physical nature would be classified as material in nature.
One of the things I find most intriguing about the Samkhya philosophy is guna theory, which states that everything is composed of different combinations of the three gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas. In other systems, the gunas were considered to be attributes, but Samkhya insisted that they were substances. That seems to me very similar to the theories of elementary particles. The stumbling block is that Samkhya taught that the elements of human consciousness are also composed of these substances. So if they or something like them does exists, it is a type of substance that is more subtle than physical matter. And no, science is not getting closer to pure consciousnes.