|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4428 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 2:09:48 PM
|
Hi Guys,
quote:
I don't think seeing a being of light would imply any other dimensions. If you are seeing something with your eyes, that is physical...especially if others are seeing it, as well. It could be that awareness of the commonly unseen things in the world is heightened by yoga....but when the things are seen, is it really so wise to determine those things as "not of this world" when they are clearly operating in the world?
When I see a being of light, it is not with my physical eyes, it is with my spiritual eyes (eye?). This means that it would not matter if my eyes were open or closed, I would see the same thing. Inner vision is (they say) connected to the opening of the ajna chakra. The light that a being of light emits is a spiritual light. This means that the light is not made up of photons. When we look at a physical object, we are seeing the light (photons) that are reflected from that object. If there is no external light source, then we see nothing. The photons that are reflected, enter our eyes, and we “see” the object. With a light being, the being has no physical body, and so, no mass. It does not reflect physical light. This means that if 3 people see a light being, and one of them pulls out a camera and takes a photo, there would be no light being in the photo. In a similar way, if the light being stood (they don't really stand, they kind of float) in front of a mirror, there would be no reflection of the light being in the mirror. Light beings do not reflect light, they emit light. So we are talking about a different kind of light, a light that you can only see with your inner vision. With normal vision, to see something, it has to be in front of you, or to the side. With spiritual vision we have 360 degree vision. Enlightened people also emit this light. It shines out of them. If your inner vision is open, you can see it. They are not called enlightened beings for nothing. . This is why the saints are depicted with halos, and an aura of light around their bodies. You see these images in churches all over Europe (I have never been to America but I imagine it is the same). Prana also emits this light, which, I believe is what is shining out of an enlightened person.
If I am right about this light, then we either have to talk about one physical world, which contains two different forms of light, which behave in two completely different ways, or a physical world and a spiritual world (and possibly several spiritual worlds), with different kinds of light in the different worlds.
quote:
David wrote: OK, (please don't let this annoy you, my friend, if you don't like it -- it's challenging but not mean in spirit)
Please write whatever you like. I am not at all attached to my view of the world, and as I said to Scott, I am quite ready to believe I am wrong. And it wasn’t that long ago that I didn’t believe in charkas!
quote:
David wrote:
you claim that our scientific world-view is mistaken, and, implicitly, you believe it is a good thing that we learn that it is mistaken. And you seem to show some emotional patterns which suggest that you would enjoy seeing the scientific community turned on its heads and eat its words.
Yes, to all of those. There is history involved here. I do believe that the current scientific world-view is mistaken. And I believe that human spiritual evolution is being restricted by that world-view. Don't forget that in Europe, religious teaching has been heavily suppressed by science for hundreds of years. Even this year in England, scientists are pressuring the Government to put a ban on religious teaching of any kind in schools. I think the whole process has caused a great deal of suffering, and the loss of an incredible amount of spiritual wisdom. So yes, there is an emotional element. I do believe that one day scientist will discover the existence of other dimensions (or worlds/ planes/ realms), which operate under different scientific laws, different forms of light and gravity, and the existence of beings that live in those realms.
I very much hope that this will happen as I believe it would be a huge step forward for everyone. It could be the beginning of a reconciliation between science and religious teaching in the west. And the beginning of the end of a great deal of unnecessary suppression. Do I really think that any scientists would "eat their words" if this happened?. No. I don't think there would ever be an official apology, so to speak, but that doesn't really matter.
quote:
David Wrote:
Modern scientists are in complete agreement about how many physical dimensions there are -- three. If you are thinking of string theory, it's a red herring for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it doesn't have good status because it is not working. If you are thinking that the extra dimensions of 'string theory' provide a basis for a 'spirit realm' where spiritual things happen, I'm afraid you are in the domain of a category error. The extra dimensions of 'string theory' (if they ever work) is such a specialized concept that it really has no correspondence to such a thing.
I don't know much about string theory. I am sure you know much more. But if this is true, then it is a shame. Maybe we are not seeing the beginnings of a breakthrough in science. Or maybe scientists have got it right all along? J
I would enjoy seeing a breakthrough of this kind, but not in any malicious way, or out of contempt, but because I would see it as a progressive step in human understanding of the universe.
quote:
David wrote:
And you believe you have a proof that it is mistaken
If I were to put my hand near your body, whilst you sat in a chair blindfloded, and you were able to tell me where my hand was because you felt energy in your body spiralling near my hand, and you did it a hundred times and were right every time, would you say "Ah, now I see that the current scientific world view is mistaken. There obviously is a spiritual dimension as well as a physical dimension"?
Or would you go along with Scott and say, there obviously are aspects of the workings of atomic energy (or energy in general) in the physical world that we don't yet fully understand? I think most people would agree with Scott.
quote:
David wrote:
And you believe you have a proof that it is mistaken, which you can show to Randi, get the immediate attention of the world scientific community, turn the scientific community on its head overnight and make it eat its words, boost the scientific respect for yoga and spawn investigation into it (and also give you a million dollars which could end your broke-ness and give you a lot left over for worthy causes, including Yogani's say, who made significan financial sacrifices to help us).
But that is not the way forward. Why not? I can only see immense good things coming from this proof and no bad ones.
There are a few issues here.
1. Is Randy completely impartial? Or does he set out to prove that psychics are frauds?
2. If I did this, it would be no good if I were simply to say if someones chakras were opening or not, after all, what proof would there be? So the person on the receiving end would have to say where my hand was. And, they would have to get it right a significant proportion of times. Now, I have no doubt that someone who is experiencing a degree of ecstatic conductivity already, would get it right nearly every time, but that doesn't apply to the majority of the population. In other words, like kechari and sambhavi, it would only work on people who are already kundalini awakened to a certain degree. Other people may feel nothing. So if Randi wanted me to preform this objective test on a random sample of the population, he would “prove” me a fraud. On the other hand, if I could select who was to be on the receiving end, it would work.
3. There is a bigger problem. You see Yogani can levitate. As can other people who are on this forum. People often write in with their levitation problems, and Yogani gives them very good advice. Levitation is a far more impressive demonstration of the workings of spiritual energy than anything I could do. If Yogani needs the money, why doesn't he go and levitate in front of Randi? I also believe that Yogani can do some far more amazing things than levitation. He could go back every day and simply notch up the millions. But I don't think he will. Why not? My guess would be that he thinks that the mindset of humanity needs to progress at a certain pace. Too much, too fast could freak people out. Also, people could become obsessed with spiritual energy, and using it for the wrong reasons. This is why, for a very long time, Yogis have advised people against demonstrating siddhis. Now I realize that what you are suggesting I do, is not the demonstration of a siddhi, but I think the same reasons still apply. I take my lead (to a certain extent) from spiritual teachers that I respect. I don't see any of them up there on the Randi show (if it is a TV programme) demonstrating the manifestation of spiritual energy in the physical realm, even to raise money for charity. So for now, I will decline (even for a million dollars). If you think these reasons are invalid, then I may reconsider (I am easily bought ).
Christi
|
 |
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 4:09:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
3. There is a bigger problem. You see Yogani can levitate. As can other people who are on this forum. People often write in with their levitation problems, and Yogani gives them very good advice. Levitation is a far more impressive demonstration of the workings of spiritual energy than anything I could do. If Yogani needs the money, why doesn't he go and levitate in front of Randi? I also believe that Yogani can do some far more amazing things than levitation. He could go back every day and simply notch up the millions. But I don't think he will. Why not? My guess would be that he thinks that the mindset of humanity needs to progress at a certain pace. Too much, too fast could freak people out. Also, people could become obsessed with spiritual energy, and using it for the wrong reasons. This is why, for a very long time, Yogis have advised people against demonstrating siddhis. Now I realize that what you are suggesting I do, is not the demonstration of a siddhi, but I think the same reasons still apply. I take my lead (to a certain extent) from spiritual teachers that I respect. I don't see any of them up there on the Randi show (if it is a TV programme) demonstrating the manifestation of spiritual energy in the physical realm, even to raise money for charity. So for now, I will decline (even for a million dollars). If you think these reasons are
So Yogani you can levitate   That's new to me i don't remember you making that claim or anyone else at the forum for that matter perhaps I am getting the wrong end of the stick here but I am confused now, so Christie please clarify for me and point to the posts where this claim has been made
Richard |
Edited by - Richard on Nov 20 2006 4:10:24 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 4:30:10 PM
|
1. Is Randy completely impartial? Or does he set out to prove that psychics are frauds?
Depends on what you mean. The thing about science is that the partiality of the experimenter means nothing -- provided only that the experiment is correctly designed. See the bit below about Bienveniste.
And 'frauds' is not necessarily the right word. They may just as often be misguided or inadvertently deceived by their experiences. They are perhaps even more often simply deceived than actual frauds, though sometimes combinations of both.
2. If I did this, <SNIP> On the other hand, if I could select who was to be on the receiving end, it would work.
No problem selecting your person. You could go as a pair and demonstrate your paranormal power.
Why not do it in the dark, if it is done by emission of light?
Truth is, these claims have been made before, and the claimers have always failed a correctly designed experiment.
Some years ago a 'scientist' called Bienveniste made a big stir about being able to prove that water has 'memory' (in support of homeopathic claims). His team was indeed getting these results, but they were measuring them themselves. When they were brought in front of Randi, Randi spotted a flaw in the experiment design and adjusted the circumstances in no way other than to eliminate the possibility that they were either (a) being frauds or (b) deceiving themselves. Any objective scientist would agree that this is what he did. When this modification was made, they were no longer getting the results --- they suddenly failed miserably to be able to 'prove' that water has 'memory'.
This doesn't tell us whether they were frauds or just self-deceiving (letting their emotions and bias affect the scores) or both; nor does it matter which Randi believed which they were doing. What does matter is that they were doing one of the two and it was detected by Randi, and all of their claims of having such a proof were ended.
You've just put Yogani up on an enormous pedestal. Let's see how he responds. BTW, there is what is called 'yogic flying' but everything I can see about it indicates that it is muscle-initiated and is really just like hopping.
I don't believe that you or anyone else on this earth actually can demonstrate/prove paranormal powers, though there may be many who, in error, believe that they can. But most of all, I find the line "I can prove it; it is time for the world to believe it; but it is not time for the world to see my proof" to be utterly absurd and illogical.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 20 2006 4:38:38 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 4:38:15 PM
|
Hi All:
Ahem, read all about the spectacular miracles here: http://www.aypsite.org/76.html
Those are the ones we all are cultivating. 
It happens to be the subject of the next book being worked on here -- Samyama. It is about clearing out the inner obstructions more than about making miracles, though one naturally leads to the other in its own way and time. Not by our will -- by the divine will flowing out through us with fewer impediments.
The greatest miracle is that we (every one of us) can become infinite channels of divine love like that. It is a non-doing, and the outcome does not belong to us. At the same time, it is us.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 4:51:49 PM
|
Hi Yogani,
it might be a good time to spell out to Christi that you cannot (as of yet anyway) levitate in any true sense of the word, meaning remain suspended in the air in defiance of the laws of gravity, in such a way as to be able to prove levitation to Randi in the lab. Just in case he thinks that you are just being modest, since your post above and the lesson you link to don't constitute a direct, unambigous denial.
If you leave any room at all for being mythologized on this matter, you will be. Trust me.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 20 2006 4:54:46 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 4:54:30 PM
|
quote:
I don't believe that you or anyone else on this earth actually can demonstrate/prove paranormal powers,
Hi David - I just pick your quote not specifically with respect to your post as its a good summary of the (soi-disant) 'scientific' position.
I would recommend you check out the work/books of Dean Radin who is a pukkha scientist who has written a couple of books on the meta-analysis of parasychological experiments over the past few decades. I too believed that the "evidence" was not there.. but it turns out it is (he also has a chapter on why the media/'science' deems it not to be). He also (as I dimly recall) has something on how the so-called scpetics actually have no qualifications in science whatsoever (Randi is a magician and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject ).
Alternatively check out the PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) project which has proven beyond any doubt the interaction of mind and matter.
So taking your position of examining the evidence I would challenge anyone to move beyond belief and onto the evidence... you may well be surprised (I certainly was!!).
Taking positions on this and relating "beliefs" (as opposed to direct knowledge) I would venture to suggest is actually just indulging in prejudices or a priori lashing oneself to some philosophical mast... I should know I did it rather well for 43 3/4 years
quote:
But most of all, I find the line "I can prove it; it is time for the world to believe it; but it is not time for the world to see my proof" to be utterly absurd and illogical.
Well I wouldnt go that far myself (its rather illogical non-sequitor after all  ). However I have seen around the net quite a bit of claiming "I could do this if I wanted to but I dont need a million bucks" from people who claim to be able to do this that or the other (which one rather suspects will not hold up to scrutiny)... Actually the whole million bucks thing is a great gimmick to attract the American psyche (if someone is "for real" how would they not go for the dollars eh?!?  )
...on the other hand all Yogani seems to do is to promise to make people happier, healthier and better citizens.. something which all evidence indicates he is rather succesful at
peace
Mike
ps I don't entirely see why Yogani should feel pressured into making any (egoic) statement of his abilities or otherwise... as I say making many many people happier and creating open-source 'secrets' is a real siddhi in my book  |
Edited by - Mike on Nov 20 2006 5:00:43 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 5:07:37 PM
|
He also (as I dimly recall) has something on how the so-called scpetics actually have no qualifications in science whatsoever (Randi is a magician and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject ).
Mike, this stuff doesn't matter and it is in fact in many ways good that Randi is a magician rather than a scientist. For a long time, scientists had the wool pulled over their eyes by 'psychics' simply using powers of deception. The scientists were just not clued into the methods of illusion. With Randi on the team, everything changes.
and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject
Again, it doesn't matter; science is not a priesthood. Your ability to scrutinize claims scientifically is what matters and you can have it without a degree. I had it before I got mine, and I'd have it even if I didn't get mine.
People can write up anything on the Internet or anywhere else. I believe that if I could genuinely prove psychic power ( in front of Randi or his likes), I would do it and, in the interest of scientific knowledge and the advancement of mankind, make the headlines in every paper in the world within a week. Science would be turned on its head, and scientists would be glad of something new to study.
There is a reason, however, why this isn't happening.
ps I don't entirely see why Yogani should feel pressured into making any (egoic) statement of his abilities or otherwise... as I say making many many people happier and creating open-source 'secrets' is a real siddhi in my book
I'm not sure what 'egoic' means here, but saying, "No, sorry, I don't actually have that supernormal power" certainly hardly qualifies as egoic ever.
A lot comes down to whether you think mythologization of a human being is a good thing or not. It certainly can be delicious for the human being in question, and delicious for the believers if they really need to believe in something even if very false and misleading. But delicious is not always good.
I generally believe the mythologization of a human being to be en evil. In that, my Judaeo-christian upbringing and my scientific mentality are in complete harmony.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 20 2006 5:20:50 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4428 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 5:58:14 PM
|
Hi David
quote:
I generally believe the mythologization of a human being to be en evil. In that, my Judaeo-christian upbringing and my scientific mentality are in complete harmony.
I wouldn't go as far as to say an evil. But I would say that it could be unhelpful. But nobody is mythologizing anyone here. A myth is something that is not true. The mythologization of a human being means making someone out to be someone they are not, such as by attributing abilities to someone that they do not have. No-one here is doing that. Saying that someone can levitate, isn't putting them on a pedestal.
If you look at the way Yogani writes (or listen to the way he speaks), you can tell that he is a really down-to-earth (excuse the pun) guy, and that he is really honest and open with people. I am sure the last thing he would tolerate is mythologization.
It's a big world... bigger than we think.
Christi |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 6:03:41 PM
|
Fair enough -- an evil, or unhelpful -- it's really a matter of degree, isn't it?
Saying that someone can levitate, isn't putting them on a pedestal.
I just disagree with that. I think saying that someone can levitate is putting them on an enormous pedestal.
I'm enjoying the conversation with you Christi --- I respect the way we can disagree (sometimes strongly -- and I'm not always a 'smoothie' in disagreement, like other people) without anyone getting hostile. I haven't always enjoyed the same thing with others here on this subject. Certainly, that should be one of the fruits of yoga --- to be able to disagree without hostility.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 20 2006 6:04:05 PM |
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 6:11:52 PM
|
"Certainly, that should be one of the fruits of yoga --- to be able to disagree without hostility."
No it shouldn't so shut up.
|
Edited by - Kyman on Nov 20 2006 6:22:23 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 6:37:45 PM
|
I'm definitely with David on this topic (still). Except for putting Yogani on the spot...I don't want to do that.
But besides that - I think it's time for the world to see what all this talk is about. If there is anything paranormal that someone can demonstrate, there's no good reason why they won't show it to others. Saying, "the people will become obsessed with this power" or something similar is a guess at best, and most likely just a delusion of grandeur. No one knows how society will react to certain things (unless of course, they developed that specific siddhi for knowing how society will react ).
David, I think you're right that scientists all over the world would want to study something like this. It would be on the front page of every newspaper. It'd be on Oprah.
I am open to the possibility that someone can levitate. It wouldn't blow my mind if I saw it. I don't think I'd become obsessed over it...at least not any more obsessed than I am now. Yes, of course I have attempted to develop that ability. I want the million dollar prize too! But the ability has not been developed...and it's very questionable whether it has for anyone else.
I will tell you all one thing...when I am able to levitate I'm going for that prize! |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 6:48:12 PM
|
Christi,
quote:
When I see a being of light, it is not with my physical eyes, it is with my spiritual eyes (eye?). This means that it would not matter if my eyes were open or closed, I would see the same thing. Inner vision is (they say) connected to the opening of the ajna chakra.
I see lights too, due to the opening of the ajna chakra...I don't refer to them as beings. It seems to me they are more like chemicals being released than anything objectively real. I may need more experience, as well as more opening.
quote:
The light that a being of light emits is a spiritual light. This means that the light is not made up of photons. When we look at a physical object, we are seeing the light (photons) that are reflected from that object. If there is no external light source, then we see nothing. The photons that are reflected, enter our eyes, and we “see” the object. With a light being, the being has no physical body, and so, no mass. It does not reflect physical light. This means that if 3 people see a light being, and one of them pulls out a camera and takes a photo, there would be no light being in the photo. In a similar way, if the light being stood (they don't really stand, they kind of float) in front of a mirror, there would be no reflection of the light being in the mirror. Light beings do not reflect light, they emit light. So we are talking about a different kind of light, a light that you can only see with your inner vision.
That is a nice description.
quote:
With normal vision, to see something, it has to be in front of you, or to the side. With spiritual vision we have 360 degree vision. Enlightened people also emit this light. It shines out of them. If your inner vision is open, you can see it. They are not called enlightened beings for nothing.. This is why the saints are depicted with halos, and an aura of light around their bodies. You see these images in churches all over Europe (I have never been to America but I imagine it is the same). Prana also emits this light, which, I believe is what is shining out of an enlightened person.
If I am right about this light, then we either have to talk about one physical world, which contains two different forms of light, which behave in two completely different ways, or a physical world and a spiritual world (and possibly several spiritual worlds), with different kinds of light in the different worlds.
I'm leaning towards the one physical world, with different forms of light. You know there is another kind of light which we can't see but some animals can? UV light. That isn't on another dimension...its effects are obvious to us in the physical realm although it remains invisible to humans. The same thing could be explained for why if you take a photograph of a spiritual being nothing shows up...perhaps the camera isn't capable of capturing that form of energy. But perhaps that energy is physical, nonetheless.
Or perhaps you are right, that there are actually multiple dimensions, some of which don't completely connect with the physical. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4428 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 7:19:36 PM
|
quote:
David wrote:
I'm enjoying the conversation with you Christi --- I respect the way we can disagree (sometimes strongly -- and I'm not always a 'smoothie' in disagreement, like other people) without anyone getting hostile. I haven't always enjoyed the same thing with others here on this subject. Certainly, that should be one of the fruits of yoga --- to be able to disagree without hostility.
Thanks David, I enjoy conversing with you also, as with everyone else on this forum. I appreciate honesty (even Scott's honesty). It is good to be challenged sometimes.
Actually I find this forum quite an amazing place, like a breath of fresh air. This is important stuff that we are doing here... keep up the good work everyone.
quote:
David wrote:
I just disagree with that. I think saying that someone can levitate is putting them on an enormous pedestal.
I think it depends what your reality is. If you are only interested in manifesting your true divine nature, then some guy levitating wouldn't impress you very much (not for very long anyway). If you think that Newtonian physics has all the answers then you would probably be quite impressed (and maybe a little disorientated). If I met someone who could really surrender to the divine within them, that would impress me far more. Then I would get my really big pedestal out and get down on my knees
Christi |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 7:25:20 PM
|
Scott said: I'm definitely with David on this topic (still). Except for putting Yogani on the spot...I don't want to do that
Scott, I think 'putting Yogani on the spot' is a somewhat strong and loaded phrase for what I did. I pointed out, quite correctly, that his post and message still leave definite room for people to believe that he can levitate. He's a self-professed 'ordinary guy', according to those very posts, and I can't agree that asking an ordinary guy, who wants it to be genuinely believed that he is an ordinary guy, to deny that he can levitate, in the face or people who may tend to believe otherwise, is 'putting him on the spot'.
The sense I got from the radio interview is that Yogani is an ordinary guy who wants it to be genuinely believed that he is an ordianary guy; which to my mind necessitates that he is not put on the spot by being asked to make it clear that he cannot levitate, despite claims by forum members to the contrary.
Am I not making perfect sense?
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4428 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 7:41:15 PM
|
quote:
David wrote:
and I can't agree that asking an ordinary guy, who wants it to be genuinely believed that he is an ordinary guy, to deny that he can levitate, in the face or people who may tend to believe otherwise, is 'putting him on the spot'.
"Ordinary guys" can be capable of quite extraordinary things. That is what yoga is about. That's why we are doing it. We are all ordinary guys (and girls), and at the same time (as Yogani says) we have infinate potential.
By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with asking someone a strait question. If they want to answer they will, if they choose not to they won't. If you don't ask, you'll never know.
Christi |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 8:02:11 PM
|
David,
I think Christi sums it up best when he says:
quote:
If they want to answer they will, if they choose not to they won't. If you don't ask, you'll never know.
I wouldn't want to see Yogani pressured into answering, which could very well happen if more people got involved and harsh accusations were being made. Hopefully this sort of thing would never happen here, where Yogani offers us tons of free advice and support....where people should be grateful that someone would actually share their experience in such depth as Yogani does. (I'm not implying you aren't grateful..not at all!)
I don't think you were being rude by asking, but it is somewhat dangerous territory. Especially when the person in question hasn't been very clear on it as of yet...it makes me think there is a reason why he's being unclear, and perhaps it's best if we let it be.
But you asked, and if it goes unanswered, I suppose that is the answer. |
|
|
|
sadhak
India
604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2006 : 11:23:47 PM
|
Hi Christi, Scott, David,
I really enjoyed reading this thread. Just this morning I was thinking " Would it make a big perception difference to my life if I could see atoms (even through an electron microscope)? Do I or others disbelieve in atoms just because I can't see them? Yet, if I could actually see them, would not my world be transformed?" And the discussion carried forward here.
I find it difficult to carry on with long discussions here because a) I find it time and effort consuming to read through long threads (and they are pretty long overnight or over a day... by the time I get here), find the points to quote and respond to, and b) by the time it gets anywhere I find myself in a lot of agreement or 'appreciate where you come from'... like I can do with all three of you here at different points.
Scott's answer on the 'physical neurological purification process' was as relevant to me at least, as Christi's subtle-body 'samskara' one. Yet the discussion between all three refined both in my mind.
One point I would like to make is that though all this is only as real as one's experience (can you see atoms, are they there?) terminology tht may seem 'alien' is retained to preserve the original sharpness of the perception or definition. Imagine if everyone started translating 'atom' (to be very pedestrian in giving a 'scientific' example) as they understood it and several years down the line the original definition were lost, what would it finally be distorted into, in the absence of the written first hand observation and experience of the scientist? If I went and tried explaining 'atom' to a bunch of kids or even adults in a remote Indian village, and gave it a lot of definitions and names to the exclusion of the word 'atom', several years afterward it would have metamorphosised into a strange deity or phenomenon with little resemblence to the original.
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 12:29:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
The ancient yogis knew nothing about modern science, and lacked some of its richness.
It is entirely possible that the ancient yogis knew more about 'modern science' than do modern scientists.
Here have a read: http://kaalpurush.tripod.com/id14.html
Most of humanity does not know its true history from 5 and 50 years ago. Nevermind 5000 years ago. This is because those who control the past control the present... Same goes for spiritual knowledge. It is much easier to control an ignorant mass of people as opposed to an enlightened one.
Anyway. This turned out to be a beautiful thread. Thank you Christi, Scott and David for the discussion! Personally I don't really care if Yogani can levitate, because I know he can smile while walking on a very sharp razor! Hahaha.
PS. Nothing is impossible for those at Unity with God. |
Edited by - Chiron on Nov 21 2006 12:32:19 AM |
|
|
|
sadhak
India
604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 01:55:09 AM
|
| @ Chiron. I agree Chiron. It doesn't matter whether Yogani or any other yogi can levitate or not. I can look at a mathematical genius open mouthed. But just because this one is a genius doesn't follow that I can definitely become one too. But if the genius has shown some formulae and methods to make it easier for me to use math in daily life, I am more interested in that than establishing his ability or lack of it to do some complicated theorum which I'm not likely to comrehend just now anyway. |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 04:08:30 AM
|
quote:
originally posted by david_obsidianmy scientific mentality
Well in my dictionary a scientific method is the examination of data not the re-spouting of a fixed philosophical belief based on taking the kind of science in ones school/college textbooks as a kind of bible.
If you are not prepared to examine data the Radin and PEAR work (just to quote two examples) then it seems to me your position is one of "(textbook) science as a religion" and not "science as a method".
However you are not alone in that - many (most??) people who talk about "science" are actually (mis-)using the concept in the same way  I have also noted in many internet fora that they are also the most aggressive in defending views (again a type of '(scientific) religious fundamentalism').
But as I started I am not addressing you so much as the meme argument which keeps going round and round with people more interested in magicians than the (large) body of scientific work that has been done on these subjects.
Also at the end of the day its not just more internet tittle-tattle ultimately such a position becomes a self-limiting belief holding back one's personal growth 
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Nov 21 2006 04:21:30 AM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 07:26:53 AM
|
Sadhak,
quote:
One point I would like to make is that though all this is only as real as one's experience (can you see atoms, are they there?) terminology tht may seem 'alien' is retained to preserve the original sharpness of the perception or definition. Imagine if everyone started translating 'atom' (to be very pedestrian in giving a 'scientific' example) as they understood it and several years down the line the original definition were lost, what would it finally be distorted into, in the absence of the written first hand observation and experience of the scientist? If I went and tried explaining 'atom' to a bunch of kids or even adults in a remote Indian village, and gave it a lot of definitions and names to the exclusion of the word 'atom', several years afterward it would have metamorphosised into a strange deity or phenomenon with little resemblence to the original.
That's a very good point! |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 10:55:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Hi Yogani, It might be a good time to spell out to Christi that you cannot (as of yet anyway) levitate in any true sense of the word, meaning remain suspended in the air in defiance of the laws of gravity, in such a way as to be able to prove levitation to Randi in the lab. Just in case he thinks that you are just being modest, since your post above and the lesson you link to don't constitute a direct, unambigous denial.
If you leave any room at all for being mythologized on this matter, you will be. Trust me.
Hi David:
I am not, but believe that I can. Therefore, I will not say that I cannot, and neither should anyone else.
This line of relationship within ourselves is important for everyone, as it is an essential constituent of bhakti. As we all know, bhakti is the primary engine of yoga. It is the part of us that believes, and belief is essential for us to take that next step on our path, however small or large it may be.
At the same time, as we engage in the practices of deep meditation, spinal breathing, samyama, etc., this line of internal relationship (bhakti) arises naturally, and we will no longer doubt our potential, regardless of the externals. Anything becomes possible, and the externals become all but irrelevant in the face of the steadily increasing divine outpouring. Our good intentions will manifest one way or another. How is not for us to judge...
To favor the external over the internal is a kind of mytholization that will hold us back. Isn't it obvious? Thank goodness practices will take care of it in time, so we don't have to be endlessly wrestling with our beliefs and thought patterns. Of course, we will anyway, for a while anyway. Eventually it all goes to stillness, and then we know...
Believe!
Miracles do happen (constantly) for those who believe. With respect to what we can accomplish, the word "cannot" is completely irrelevant.
The only problem with mythologizing in my opinion is that it is most often pointed in the wrong direction, externally toward others, which saps our ability to fully express our innate potential. We should be pointing it inward, and using it as inspiration for our practice.
This is the essential point in the great myths -- not to mythologize the hero as an external phenomenon, but to inspire the hero within us all. So often this point is missed. It is also a failing in the guru system. No one is to blame. It is our inner obstructions. Now we are catching on as inner silence and the light of knowledge are rising.
We ordinary folks are full with extraordinary possibilities. Let's never forget that.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 11:34:25 AM
|
Thanks Yogani. Yes, my question was about whether you were currently able to, not whether you believe you or others people are able to potentially.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 11:44:07 AM
|
Mike, scientists have this much in common with fundamentalists --- they do have conviction. And certainly, many of them have have their human foibles of narrow-mindedness and so on. But the similarities end there. The conviction of scientists is based on many millions of person-hours of study and verification. No matter what anyone says, there is no case that it is subjective, or that its findings are culturally-based. (Although, it is true that what they look for is culturally based, and even market-based in practice. There is a lot of confusion out there where the detractors of science conflate culturally-based questions with culturally-based answers. The answers of science are not cultarally-based at all). These facts are what make it pretty much impossible that scientists, in contrast with fundamentists, will fight wars with each other over what is scientific fact. Wars occur over beliefs only when people do not have the power to establish their beliefs by better, more civilized means.
The one law of science is actually: do not self-deceive.
Which has lots of corollaries: make sure it is not your desires which are making you believe that something false is true. Make sure it is not your culture which is making you believe that something false is true. Make sure it is not a mistake in your methodology which is making you believe something false is true.
Good scientists do follow this; fundamentalists do not even achieve its basics.
I haven't said that I wouldn't examine the work of Radin and PEAR, but I'm not going to spend my particular time looking at it. Because the truth is that if they are following scientific methods and can reproduce their results, they will succeed in the scientific establishment. For every Bienveniste who did go in front of Randi (and BTW, I have to commend him for being prepared to do that) to be ultimately exposed as either a fraud or a self-deceiver, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who fashion themselves as 'scientists' with work that the establishment will not listen to. Go through the logs of the people who thought they had proofs but who have failed on front of Randi; should I spend my time investigating each one? Am I narrow-minded or fundamentalist for not doing so? Or am I just a person who does not have several tens of thousands of hours a week to spare?
There are loads of books out there, and pseudo-scientific conspiracy-theoretical-ish pseudo-documentaries about the guy with the great, easily-provable discovery that no-one will listen to. They are baloney. People don't understand that they are paying for a form of entertainment, nothing more. Sort of like buying the National Enquirer. It's always been true, and always will be that when you can prove your results, you'll make it in the scientific world.
A person who tries to bring their claims into the realm of science and give them scientific status will be asked to prove them, and if they do, they will be accepted.
Now if people have results that they admit they can't (currently) prove to science yet, fair enough. These are not pseudo-scientists or scientific frauds and should not be labelled as such, but rather, just people who believe things that cannot be proven yet. And perhaps all of us fall into this category some way or another. I certainly do; for example, I believe what kechari can do but I probably can't prove it --- yet. It is true that many scientists dismiss a lot of stuff out of hand. Randi, for example, speaks dismissively of yoga. And he might not make the fine distinction between people who believe what they cannot yet prove and scientific frauds. That's his loss, there's something there that he is missing. But all told I admire him and what he does a lot, and I am glad he is here.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4428 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2006 : 1:08:57 PM
|
Hi Yogani,
Thanks for replying, I didn't think you would.
quote:
Yogani wrote:
I am not, but believe that I can. Therefore, I will not say that I cannot, and neither should anyone else.
Talk about riding the razors edge! You do a very good balancing act indeed, much better than your levitation act. I might get my pedestal out after all (only kidding).
I did not intend for you to get dragged into this discussion, and I should apologise for that, but I am glad now that you were as you always seem to be able to add an angle on things that the rest of us were missing.
Christi |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
What are the obstructions?
