I was just reading your claims about entering into "samadhi" regularly and staying there. How you could enter into "samadhi" effortlessly through just a few breaths and remain there for a long time. Have you ever thought of applying your skepticism on yourself? How did you know it was samadhi that you had entered and not some lower state of consciousness? Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say "I had entered an altered and deeper state of consciousness" - You do actually know that it is measurable exactly which state of consciousness you are in through physical indicators?
Good point. Quite right - I'm sorry, I got carried away writing that post going over my past. I have no idea what state of consciousness it was.
Higher states are characternized by altered space-time perception, loss of subjectivity, feeling of profound love, lucid thoughts and PSI functioning and OBES. There is simply no way that you would experience these states and have the close-minded materialistic views that you have.
Firstly, I did have all but the last two of these. Secondly, it is only your view of my mind that it is closed, and your view isn't too clear, to put it mildly. Given that my lack of enthusiasm for idealism turned you first into a racist, then into a wild fantasist about me, finally into an obsessive re-writer of this thread as well, you're a fine one to talk about closed-mindedness.
In fact studies show in transpersonal psychology that subjects who experience these higher states of meditation are completely transformed after them.
I was. Well, "completely transformed" may be a bit over the top, but there were some profound changes went on. On the other hand, since I was also doing deep personal psychotherapy and just generally learning from life's experiences, it's hard to say it was definitely my meditative states.
Their entire outlook on life, their behaviour, their moods completely transform. Take my example for instance, I was an atheist and materialist just like you are, but some profound spiritual experiences completely transformed me almost overnight.
In fact, the very famous atheist Ayn Rand, had an NDE, and after her experience she admitted she could no longer maintain her atheism.
Haha, that's right, the very famous female, Ayn Rand, whom I could swear you just refered to as 'he' before editing that. I can't find anything about that with a quick google. Not taken much interest in Rand. Did know she was a woman though.
Looking at your behaviour on this forum and that is the only data I have to draw judgement on. I do not at all see evidence of somebody who regularly use to slip into Samadhi a few years ago. I see somebody who is rude, violent, angry, prejudiced, close-minded and quickly develops hatred for people(like you told me earlier)
Another lie, I think. I didn't say anything of the sort. But who gives a shit, eh, after all this time, it's just yet another lie. And, as I have said already, that's what annoyed me about you, the lying and irrationality and moving of goalposts, as well as the casual racism, etc.
and sorry to say intellectually you have not impressed me,
given your inability to reason clearly.
In fuzzy logic or binary?
Therefore, I see no evidence that you have ever been in Samadhi - what you have been in was some altered state, but on a very low level.
Whatever, dude. You know me. I'm on a low level. You're way up high.
I will reiterate and I know I am bad and judgemental to say it
Really? Surya Deva thinks he's bad and judgemental! WTF? So your marvellous yoga journey has left you bad, judgemental, irrational and deceitful. Why hasn't it turned you into a nice person, like it's supposed to?
- but you are a failed yogi. Patanjali says in the Yogasutras one of the obstacles on the path that stops progress is doubt.
Well, he would, wouldn't he. Everybody who wants you to believe what they believe tell you not to let doubt get in the way. Catholic priests say it (even to little boys they're about to rape). Bankers say it. And, had you any interest in eliciting some of my views on yoga religion, you would have found that this is what I am concerned about, and why I bother arguing with people like you on the internet - not because I'm a troublemaker, or closed-minded, but because I see a lot of people failing to value doubt, not understanding how vital it is. Without doubt, most of us would just believe whatever religion or philosophy we are brought up with. In order to leave your previous philosophical positions, you probably had to doubt them. So if you value what you believe now as true, doubt brought you to it. Now, however, the teachers of that tradition tell you not to doubt. It's ok if you've decided it's safe and fine for you - I have no problem with you believing it. I just argue sometimes for critical thinking (which involves doubt - nobody can claim they are a critical thinker and prefer never to doubt anything).
And you've been going on about how closed minded I am, yet at the same time repeating over and over your prejudice against "skepdic.com" and other sceptical sites and opinions. They just hold different opinions from you, the value doubt, and they value critical thinking. And you must by definition be closed minded and prejudiced to write them off out of hand. How can I argue with you against psi, for instance, if you're going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree that psi exists? It's irrational, knee-jerk dismissal of the opposite, threatening position.
Then, consider the scientific method, which you seem to approve of to some extent, or at least you like QM, which came from it. It depends centrally on doubt. When someone makes a best guess, a hypothesis, they don't just go "Oh, that must be it! Let's not have any doubt!" They do their damnedest to disprove it. So I urge you to think again about Patanjali. I know it would be pretty rank to have to change philosophy again after all those ones you thought were right, now landing here on Samkhya, blimey...but it's worth it. Ignore Patanjali. Doubt. And keep doubting.
So who has the closed mind? One who does not doubt, because one of his great teachers says not to, or someone who keeps urging us all to doubt what we now think and try different thoughts on for size, learn new things, don't just keep talking to the converted.
It sounds like to me you started of fairly well and were able achieve relative states of mental quietness, but due to the stresses and conflicting opinions you encountered, you developed doubt and that doubt was enough to throw you off the path.
And once again you are engaging in rationalization, speculative invention about what happened so that you can feel better about it. That isn't what happened. And it's another reason I get angry with you.
Had you continued(as Patanjali says keep going) and 30 years is a very long time and more than enough to experience very high states and certainly PSI - you would have got there.
Where? To a state of great calm and goodness and non-prejudice? How do you know? You're hardly a good advert, you know.
Doubt has prevented you from progressing.
Nope, education and a lot of analysis of it made me re-assess what it was all about. Had this argument not been so bad between us, I would have been able to tell you that I value a lot of meditation practice, it makes a lot of medical sense, within orthodox science, without invoking invisible channels and vortices of subtle energy. Asana, of course, also have perfectly logical medical grounds. You don't have to see it the way I see it, it's ok, but I see it the way I see it. So there's no need to think you're "educating" me with long treatises on idealist ontology that I haven't the least interest in anymore. Been there, done that, moved on. Now consider such things what they obviously are, imagination. Imagination's very powerful. And just because I believe this about yoga does not mean that I am insulting your beliefs, or ancient Indians' abilities, and it does not give you the right to call me a supremacist or Eurocentric or not of the right ethnic origins to be able to think in relative terms, only fixed black and whites. Sorry, but these are simple facts I know because they are going on in my head, not yours.
In fact it has completely stopped you dead in your tracks.
No, I'm coming on very well, thanks. Just not on the path you consider the correct one.
Now, either you will continue from where you left off in this life or the next.
In this life, I'll continue doing my unyoga, yes, my way.
Your doubt is a philosophical doubt about the nature of reality.
Not really. It's quite simple really. It's an increasing belief actually. An increasing belief that our minds make up a lot of nonsense we shouldn't take at face value. Do you understand? I know you won't agree, but it would be nice if you just understood something I said for a change. When I was asking meditation tutors for help, this was the question I was dealing with the most. When you have experiences and you label them - like "samadhi" - that's fine, as you quite rightly corrected me, they even have objective measures of brainwave frequencies so we can identify samadhi, perhaps, from other states, and give them all names. I have no problem with all that. I have no problem with all the medical science, which I wish would hurry up and applaud greatly, showing that it has benefits to brain function and other health conditions (stimulating the relaxation response, reducing cortisol and adrenaline, etc., the stress hormones). I just do not quite accept the further, philosophical hypotheses, that are based on substances, or non-substances, that we have no objective evidence for yet. Indeed, the more we learn about how yoga affects the blood flow, bones, muscles, lymph drainage, oxygenation of the brain, etc., etc., the LESS do I - as a rational scientist - need to look for chakras and nadis to explain those effects.
Now, you may believe those who say there are further siddhis, and you may be right. But I doubt it. And we would be very stupid not to recognise that there are at least some people who do clever tricks pretending they have all sorts of superpowers. There are fakirs and magicians. There is an organisation going round India as we speak trying to educate Indians about how fakirs do their tricks, pretending to be holy men, and taking money. We could also do with some going round Manchester and Essex - just so you know I'm not insulting Indians' intelligence here. Do you think these organisations are doing good? I can't work out what you might say - surely you know there are fake yogis, so you must agree that they are doing some good to expose the fakes, even if you also believe there are true holy men. That's all very rational, except it does mean that you value doubt in some circumstances. It must mean that you recognise that people can be fooled by their experience. Seeing, or feeling, is only believing to the credulous, I'm afraid. And if you're told not to doubt what you think you feel, well, where are you but a blind man following whoever happens to take your hand? So this is also the rationale for skeptical authors - we're trying to wake people up from believing whatever they're told and whatever they think is exciting or comforting.
You have this doubt because you have been exposed to bad Western philosophy.
No. I've learned some good science and matured, that's all. Really. Remember this is me you're talking about.
I don't have this doubt because I understand Indian philosophy. For me Yoga makes absolute and total ontological sense.
OK, if you say so. I hope you don't mind, but I still doubt that it really does. The amount of effort you go to explaining it here seems the act of someone almost trying to convince himself. But of course, I offer that humbly for you to consider and must bow to your knowledge of what's in your own experience.
However, bear in mind I have been on a 10 year long path of Jnana yoga. I made it a point to study Indian philosophy and clear away my doubts.
Is it just Jnana yoga that encourages you not to doubt? Can you imagine another different philosopher saying the same thing - even a cult member? "I joined the Moonies to clear away my doubts". "I've been a Catholic priest for 20 years, but only recently went on an intensive sabatical to clear away my doubts about virgin birth".
Although, I have experiences too back up the predicates of Indian philosophy,
And I respect everyone's right to make what they can of their experience.
a lot of my conviction is intellectual(I can follow arguments)
All I can say is that on the subject of Indian philosophy I've seen you post reams and reams of concepts and relationships between concepts - a whole ontology, and I've seen even more description of how very clever Indian epistemology is, but not very much actual intellectual process. And when I see that, I ask questions to try to understand. I think it's really useful to simplify things, so I ask simple questions. I ask things like "How can any human being absolutely distinguish real intuitive insight from imagination?". I looked for an answer I could understand, but it hasn't been forthcoming. This is exactly the question I asked myself before doing my vipassana course. You can just hope you know the difference, can't you? And if you - in the meantime - "clear away your doubts" - you'll trust that you are finding what you're expecting to find. If you want to blame me for something, say I was a coward. I didn't dare go into a more intensive training in vipassana, in case rather than "waking up to reality" I was hypnotising myself into a false religious belief. I put those thoughts alongside how unlikely it seems that evolution through natural selection would coexist with reincarnation, etc., and it dawned on me - VERY PAINFULLY - that I may have been deluding myself since I first read an authoratitive voice telling me "Today, men are suffering because they are not sure. This is the sure way....".
The fact is Indian philosophy is entirely logical, that even if a honest atheist was to follow the arguments, they would accept its conclusions.
Well, since you don't think I'm an honest one, and I don't believe you, it's not me.
Erwin Schrodinger was an atheist - he learned Indian philosophy - he became a Hindu.
That, with respect, means absolutely nothing. Did Marie Curie discover radium because of her religion? For all we know, someone may right now be scribbling away discovering the error in Schrodinger's view. And if anyone thinks that is insulting to Hindus, they're not paying attention.
The problem with you is your buddhi(intellect) is underveloped,
I don't mean to boast, but that is a rather uncommon opinion of me.
this is why even when the logical proof given to you is blatant you still cannot see the logic -its also very illogical, contradictory.
Sorry, the logical proof of your philosophy is illogical and contradictory? And that's "my problem"? No, it was my wake-up call. My philosophy is now, as far as possible, entirly logical. You don't have to do some illogic with my logic. That's largely why I prefer it. It's frightening at first. My god, am I becoming a robot? What happens to poetry and feelings and love? But lots of people have converted to non-mystical positions and found that their feeling and poetry and love was just as good as before, even better in fact, for not having a repressed weight of doubt (which I suspect everyone must have who believes irrational things and has to keep refusing to doubt). But as I said in about my first post, each to their own.
You are killing your buddhi with this extreme close minded materialist belief system you have adopted and this group identification with team "Randi and Dawkins co"
For goodness sakes, Surya Deva, do yourself a favour and stop guessing what is in other people's heads. Ask. Find out. I mentioned Randi, perhaps, once (I can't even remember!), and I find him a rather nasty little git, to be honest. I actually dislike Richard Dawkins' argumentative style, as well, his "militant atheism" is just what the world does not need right now. So fuck off until you can be bothered to respect another person enough to give a shit what they think, ok, big man?
You no longer think for yourself
Haha. Good one. Pull the other one while you practise not doubting what Patanjali said about doubting. Jesus effing christ on a skateboard! I - the sceptic - no longer think for myself! You - the believer and doubt-eradicator - think for yourself and have worked out the underlying truth of the universe! This must all be too logically illogical for my stupid brain!
- and this is clearly evident in when I gave you some evidence for PSI, you retorted "Let me check skepticdic.com"
No, I didn't retort that. I presented you with some alternative way to think about what you already thought. Think about that, and your reaction to it.
Without realizing it you are indoctrinated into a belief system - the very thing you think you are not.
I really doubt that, compared with you.
This is what makes materialism a dangerous belief system - because you don't actually realize it is there - eroding away your intellectual faculties.
Ah, this is where there has to be another little nudge of your understanding. As I explained earlier, some things we say are shorthand versions. I am currently a materialist, in that materialism is my current favoured hypothesis. So I'm not stuck in it blindly. If someone shows me some evidence for mind as a separate substance, or consciousness, I will consider that. Indeed, I do consider other possibilities all the time when I'm in one of my philosophy phases (I don't go on like this all the time, BTW - I have phases - I'll be writing computer programs or camping or cutting trees down another time and not that interested in the meaning of life, just enjoying it, as I rather suspect we've only one.)
This is, as I already said, how science also works. There is always some theoretical possibility we're stuck in a delusion, isn't there, but we do what we can to step outside it. But apparently that only applies to me. You're sure. This is what's been so frustrating. You call me closed minded and supremacist and binary-thinking, while I only try to explain that my philosophy is fundamentally non-fundamental, as flexible as possible, and I'm anything but sure about anything. I do admit I prefer clear logic, not logic that is also mystically illogical at the same time. But even then I respect those who choose that. My partner does. She doesn't ultimately care a hoot about all these fine analyses. She feels Christ in her life, or thinks she does, and that's enough truth for her. What she doesn't do is pretend she can write an equation to prove it, which essentially is what you reckon about your belief. If you just follow the logic, it's absolutely clear (except for the illogical bit).
SD, if you could try to listen and represent my views more fairly, you would see that I've not been trolling (except lately when I just gave up), and you will deserve more respect from me. You have utterly abused my views, my motivation and my method, and got no worse than you deserved for it.