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.
Hubert,
Those are a couple of really good posts. I understand and agree with almost everything you said. But I think I need to clarify that I do not deny the reality of thoughts and dreams. I am just pointing out the difference between word, concept, and the underlying object. Allow me to rephrase. When we demonstrate something by experiment, we show that our concept of the thing conforms to the underlying reality. In other words, we got it right this time.
You made an interesting observation about statistics, which I hadn’t thought of. I had previously stated that proof by logic alone isn’t enough, because we can reach false conclusions that are logically correct. I mention statistics because that is a tool that we use to verify that our inferences are correct. If we hypothesize that Hubert has telepathic ability, and if we could design a good experiment, statistics could tell us that Hubert probably does or does not have telepathic ability. The difficulty would be in designing the experiment. And since we can’t design a good experiment, then it becomes a matter of personal experience or faith.
But I don’t want to take away from your main point, which is that inner experience can be had, provided one develops the necessary skills. It is my experience that this is true, although I do not claim to have well developed skills at this point.
[QUOTE=Asuri;21150]
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]
Patanjali Yoga Sutras 7
The right kinds of knowledge are: direct perception, INFERENCE and scriptural testimony.
Whatever our senses perceive is right knowledge, provided that there has been no element of delusion. Whatever we INFER from our direct perception is also right knowledge. The scriptures are based upon the superconscious knowledge obtained by great spiritual teachers while in state of perfect yoga…
So I would say that it is possible to have knowledge of something without direct experience. It is INFERENCE, as mentioned by Patanjali.
Lots of laws in atomic and quantum physics are based on INFERENCE.
[QUOTE=Asuri;21210]
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.[/QUOTE]
I am quoting from a text about yoga sutras:
The gunas are sometimes described as “energies” sometimes as “qualities.” No single English word can define them.
They may be thought COLLECTIVELY as a triangle of forces, opposed and yet complementary. Sattwa is the essence of the form which has to be realized, tamas is the inherent obstacle to its realization, and rajas is the power by which the obstacle is removed and the essential form made.
INDIVIDUALLY -sattwa represents all that is pure, ideal and tranquil, while rajas expresses itself in action, motion and violence, and tamas is the principle of solidity, immmobile resistance and inertia.
All three gunas are present in everything, but one guna always predominates.
[QUOTE=Hubert;21204]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.
Hubert[/QUOTE]
Well, physics has created even “synthetic telepathy.”
http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/newphysics/synthtele/synthtele.html
Make sure that you have not experienced that. It is used in less than noble purposes, to say the least.
I have read somewhere that frequencies , 20 Khz and 40 Khz if I remember correctly, make your brain susceptible to telepathic hypnosis. There is no
way I can know if this is true or not.
My post above is by no means intended to contradict your ideas. It is just a warning about deception.
[QUOTE=oak333;21219]I am quoting from a text about yoga sutras:
The gunas are sometimes described as “energies” sometimes as “qualities.” No single English word can define them.
They may be thought COLLECTIVELY as a triangle of forces, opposed and yet complementary. Sattwa is the essence of the form which has to be realized, tamas is the inherent obstacle to its realization, and rajas is the power by which the obstacle is removed and the essential form made.
INDIVIDUALLY -sattwa represents all that is pure, ideal and tranquil, while rajas expresses itself in action, motion and violence, and tamas is the principle of solidity, immmobile resistance and inertia.
All three gunas are present in everything, but one guna always predominates.[/QUOTE]
Well, these things have been interpreted in different ways. If you look at the Bhagavad Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam, you will find the religious interpretation. This is the first time I’ve ever seen any differentiation between collective and individual. I like to stick to authoritative sources, in order to avoid all the “spin”.
The word “guna” actually means quality, but as I said, the Samkhya insisted that they were not qualities, but the substances that compose Prakriti, even though Prakriti cannot be decomposed into the individual gunas. In fact, the primordial Prakriti is defined as the gunas in a state of equilibrium. In this state, prakriti is unmanifested. Manifestestion is said to occur when the equilibrium is disturbed and the gunas begin to combine in ways such that one or the other guna predominates.
The individual definitions that you used are closest to those that are given in the Samkhya Karika attributed to Krishna. The work of Kapila does not define the gunas in such simple terms. Instead the understanding is gained by studying the evolution of Prakriti.
Incidentally, when our concept of a thing conforms to the underlying reality, we call it knowledge. There are other types of conceptualizing for which there is no underlying reality, or which are erroneous. This type of thinking does not rise to the level of knowledge.