|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 17 2005 : 11:31:01 AM
|
Let me add some remarks for how we can check for at least some fake claims:
Sahaja yoga is well-known for its "generous" of selling/promoting experiences in which you can test for yourself. Unfortunately, as I've explained from my experience before, those are not at all convincing for those we are careful observer. What I've explained before, however, cannot judge THEIR experiences. Here I would like to add one extra example to show you the nature of THEIR experiences-- examples of getting "experience " because of their expectation.
The followers of Sahaja yoga say that even the photo of Shri Mataji have great vibration, which they say they can clearly feel the difference when meditate with one in the room. They say they can sense it when a photo of Shri Mataji is in the room. They emphasis that it's not due to psychological factors. Now here's a challenge for them: try putting 10 (or even better, more) photos in 10 envelops, with say 2 or 3 being the photos of Shri Mataji. Ask any of these guys to find those 2 or 3 out (to add some difficulty for them, don't tell them how many of these are Shri Mataji). Of course they cannot (unless you poorly design this experiment). Their selling point is experiences, they emphasis that the experiences are for everyone, QUICK and real; and yet they don't want to show you in my way, because they can't. I've heard that some believers tried on their own, but failed--of course. Otherwise they will come out and show you--- they want to.
|
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 17 2005 : 12:09:19 PM
|
Way to go Alvin!  Advance in the name of Science and truth and take no prisoners!!!
Yes, this is a recurring theme: willingness to claim, show or 'prove' some sort of magical or extraordinary power, but being unwilling (really = unable) to 'prove' in the very ways that will actually prove (to a discerning and informed, scientifically aware critical thinker).
I say:
I have this amazing watch here on my wrist which is made of some extra-terrestial substance that is so hard that it cannot be broken by anything in this world. Look, there, I am pressing very hard on it and it is not breaking. There's proof for you.
You say:
"Hmmmmm, I don't find that convincing. Do you mind if I take it off your wrist and try to smash it with this hammer?"
I say:
No, I don't ever want it to leave my wrist. And you'll really hurt my hand if you bang the watch with a heavy metal hammer while it is on my wrist......
But I will let you try to smash it with this special soft light rubber hammer of mine, designed for the very purpose of this proof..... and which won't hurt my wrist while you use it.....
A familiar pattern, eh?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 17 2005 12:14:38 PM |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 18 2005 : 03:22:21 AM
|
Unfortunately they will usually dress their stupid teachings in a rather nice way, although it's essentially the same as hard watch you're describing, David.
Some are even more tricky, though. Yogi Bhajan's "kundalini yoga" sound stupid in many aspects for But it's not so easy to challenge them in a way as the Sahaja yoga case. What they claim is something more subtle to check. They claim that their yoga is 16 times faster than hatha yoga., and this is because their yoga makes use of the kundalini. You will find that their yoga seems to be able to heal just about everything, from cancer to liver/heart diseases. But they don't promise any things specific. They just say something like "your liver/heart will be healthier by doing this and that" or "you will strengthen your aura", etc. No special experiences. Not much room for you to test objectively (unless you really conduct a long-term experiment to see if their yoga is really 16 times faster than other hatha yogis' teaching. But faster in what? You have to ask Yogi Bhajan in your prayer.)
David, I am looking forward to see your view point regarding the following post some time ago.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Alvin Chan
Nice thread, David. btw, I am curious to know your yoga practises and how you look at them. .... but I would like to know to what extent yoga practises can offer our body and mind. In fact, I wish I am wrong in my understanding of its limitations!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin,
time considerations make it impossible for me to answer for a week or so but I'd be happy to answer your question -- feel free to remind next week if I don't get to it.
For me, of course, little progress can be done in such a short period. But I find my nostrils are opening up when I do spinal breathing (with mulabanda, which I just added a few days ago). I have nasal constriction most of the time, living in such a polluted city. It seems to be my first little but obvious experience. I need more experiments on this, though. I had discovered long ago that mulabanda with breath retention (in, for 1 min) can open my nostrils. But I think that may has an easy scientific explanation, and the effects are not as stable as what spinal breath is doing for me. Also, I feel some heat on my lower back during exhalation. But not too surprising for me: the feeling is not unique, I have it long ago when I did ujjayi breathing in my hatha yoga class, or in some kind of physical stretching or exercises. I think that's due to some change in blood flow. |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 18 2005 : 08:56:51 AM
|
Dear alvin,
I don't know how anyone can say anything is 16 times faster than anything and why 16? Bear in mind that Yogi Bhajan was not enlightened nor do their practices seem much different to what a lot of others are doing so I don't know how they can make these claims.Still it takes all sorts.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 18 2005 : 11:42:58 AM
|
Hi riptiz,
I agree. I don't see any evidence that their practices are any how better than hatha yoga. I am not in a position to comment on whether he is enlightened. (but frankly speaking, he looks more like business or religious leader) I can only say his "yoga" has too many irrational elements and fake (or overstated) claims in it. After removing them, it's just about the same as your first class in hatha yoga plus something similar to push up. Not even as cleverly designed as most asanas in hatha yoga.
Also, I don't think his practices can raise your kundalini any more than doing push up and jogging. 16 times faster? If physically, than he (or his sons) can probably break the world record of many sport games. okok, maybe not 16 times faster in terms of strength. Then he or at least some of his disciples can be much more flexible than Iyengar in just a few years, and he will live up to 90 at least (he died recently at an age of seventy something, just around the average for a eastern guy. Cause: heart failure, not because he dropped his body consciously.) okok, maybe not physically (or maybe he is just genetically bounded to be short-lived). Then he would have been enlightened 16 times, not like a business man anymore.
Why 16? he would really have a long answer for you if he's still here!! He liked to say something which appears to be full of wisdom, but....Read some books on him and look specifically to his sayings: you will know what "ridiculous" means.
Want more? He encouraged much sex so that you will be attracted to his teaching. He and his disciple ask you to buy his "yogic tea"(That's his contribution to us, he said. By the way, who know what that is? besides him?); creating some pop music which they say is very holy(take them to professional musicians, they will say, from the harmony to the whole musical structure to the performance, they are of nothing new, nothing special. Beethoven may be 16 times ahead of their music); infusing his own religious view-point into yoga while denying it; claiming to be the spiritual leader in the west hemisphere(well, maybe he was?), etc. I can't comment on his yoga, but what would you think when you see something like that?
We (at least I) don't want such nonsense. We want something useful, something practical, something honest, something that has results other than those due to placebo effects, religious beliefs, etc. |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 19 2005 : 11:30:20 AM
|
Dear Alvin,
Yes, I believe he made many claims ,some maybe true and some false and from what I have read it doesn't seem much more than Hatha as you say.To state that one works directly with the shakti is also misleading I think.We can all state that if we are doing yogic practices because either deliberately or not we probably all stimulate shakti somewhere along the line.I'm trying to be careful with my words before I get bombarded with replies that accuse me of being misleading myself.In my opinion the only ones who can claim direct stimulation are those giving shaktipat because the aim is instant awakening of the Kundalini.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 12:17:36 AM
|
I can't judge ALL "shaktipat" methods. Here in Hong Kong there seems to be very few (if any) such practices. However, according to a wide-spread (and seemingly much respected) source in the following links, Sahaja yoga are considered as one of the paths using "shaktipat".
(http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~keutz...ahayoga.html
OR http://www.think-aboutit.com/Spirit...hayoga.htm#9)
I think I don't need to repeat my judgement on their methods (and why they "WORK"). That's why I don't have much expectation from other "Shatipat" methods as well. I may be wrong, but please show me, again, in the standard of scientific research. Sorry for those who really "experience" it first hand: I think the experience are mainly psychological. "Shaktipat" are, in my opinion, at most a method of initiating your pyshcological conditions due to its hypnotic effects.
As I am not familar with their exact methods. Anyone who knows more and is objective enough, please say something, especially about what I am going to propose to test their methods:
Ask at least 20 new-comers (again, more is better. I suggest 50). Let them listen to the required introductions, background, etc anything they need to receive shatipat. Finally, cover they eyes and preferably also their body (if "shatipat" cannot be blocked by a thin clothes : p). Without telling the new-comers, we arrange 2 guys, one being the guru, another one a martial art master who imitates him, (as a martial art master can imitate movement better, generally speaking) to do the "shaktipat". (one "real" and one fake, although I think none is really "real") We can arrange so that half of the new-comers receive the guru's, and half the martial art master's. Finally, ask which of these new-comers have "experience". Of course you may say: not everyone are supposed to have experience. But we can still see whether there are correlations between those who have it and those who received the guru's shaktipat. The interesting point I am looking forward to see is that, I think there would be enough of those who claim to have experience even though they received a "fake" guru's shaktipat!!
Remember: all new-comers must be listening to the same introduction, preferably recorded in a videotype. And they should not be concealed to the fact that some of them will receive fake shaktipat. i.e., they should not know that we're conducting such experiments. At least not before it. There are other precautions to avoid cheating, of course. But you know what I mean.
Before shaktipat can be justified in the above way (or other rigoros ways), anyone who is rational enough would not admit shaktipat has power other than psychological ones (much like the sahaja yoga case I described in several postings) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 08:08:59 AM
|
Alvin,
you have just described a single-blind experiment. To make it better still, it should be double-blind -- those who question the subjects and record their responses and 'score' them, should also be unaware of whether the people received 'real' or 'fake' shaktipat. Then the analysis should be based on the 'scores' alone.
Also, the groups should be randomly divided of course.
Finally, the guru's shaktiput should be mechanically analyzed and simulated of course. I got a hand-to-hand shaktiput sort of thing from a highly regarded Kriya Yoga guru. I could feel that his hand was vibrating a little; it is not hard to learn to make your hands vibrate. The 'fake' should make his hands vibrate in the same way.
I'm currently composing an answer to your earlier question, the one I 'owe' you.
-D
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 11:50:31 AM
|
quote:
you have just described a single-blind experiment. To make it better still, it should be double-blind -- those who question the subjects and record their responses and 'score' them, should also be unaware of whether the people received 'real' or 'fake' shaktipat. Then the analysis should be based on the 'scores' alone.
That's the one I want to add at first. But we can gather them together first and then ask all of them at the same time. A single person are not likely to "induce" answer to 50 participants. For the follow-up survey on their experiences, though, that would have to be double-blind. I am confident that even without the toughest design of experiemnts, we would be producing enough "funny" claims.
I think there are some who claims to be able to do "shaktipat" without touching. At least not so much touching. Or we can ask them not to shake their hands physically. Imitating is too difficult. But a good martial artist can at least do something as "shocking" as those shaking hands of a guru. There's probably enough for the purpose here.
Another expected aspects of things like "shaktipat", "Reiki", etc that worth studying: when most people say they have certain experiences and share them openly, the rest are more likely to raise their hands as well. We can do the experiment (this time double-blind is a must: the guru/teachers and the real participants) by using a group of fake participants and a group of real ones. We ask each fake participant to memorize a usual "experience" of shaktipat. We also decide beforehand a signal (better one that is not easily observed by the others) for them. At the end of the guru's "shaktipat" (or other similar things to be tested), we give them the signal, telling them whether to "share" their memorized experience or not in those last minutes.
Let me skip the precise procedures to make it up to scientific standard and statistically convincing, and come to the result I expected instead: the response of the real participants depend on whether the fake group show response or not.
Yet another thing: the "nature" of the experiences reported depends on what the guru tell them to believe. Experiment: try with using the same introduction except the "expected experience" part (better use a video-player with good editing, to make sure everything else is the same). In the case of shaktipat, the guru, not just the interviewers, has to have no knowledge of which video the participants saw. Then record their experiences afterwards.
If I know any such methods as "shaktipat" that actually works, I will do my best to do similar experiments as above to convince the world that they indeed work. (esp if I'm one of the leading persons in the organizations concerned) Sorry, no such experiments properly done, you know why..... |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 4:21:20 PM
|
Alvin said:
If I know any such methods as "shaktipat" that actually works, I will do my best to do similar experiments as above to convince the world that they indeed work. (esp if I'm one of the leading persons in the organizations concerned) Sorry, no such experiments properly done, you know why.....
By the way, the TM organization made a virtual industry of pseudo-scientific experiments designed to show that mantras chosen by the TM organization were more powerful than those chosen randomly. As the underlying premise is actually false, you can imagine how flawed the experiments were. Still, many thousands of people who cannot tell psuedu-science from science were taken in, and still are.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 4:23:23 PM
|
Finally as promised:
Originally posted by Alvin Chan
Nice thread, David. btw, I am curious to know your yoga practises and how you look at them. .... but I would like to know to what extent yoga practises can offer our body and mind. In fact, I wish I am wrong in my understanding of its limitations!!
What we are both tending to do here is subject yogic experience to a scientific-skeptical standard of analysis.
A few preliminaries. Take a person (a subject) who has just experienced say, a wonderfully blissful mood. Suppose we don’t know why (someone may have spiked their drink with some drug, unknown to us and the subject). They tell us that they have experienced this blissful mood --- do we say that they have imagined it? Not really. Regarding scientific-skeptical standards of evidence, we can scientifically trust an experience as an experience, it is only when it is interpreted in some way, or given extra cause-effect material that we have to ask for more evidence to question the interpretation. So, ‘I experienced this wonderful mood because my friend did a long-distance healing on me’ – the cause-effect relationship there should be questioned.
Similarly, a person does not really simply imagine that they had an experience of their body feeling very light. But they may have imagined that their body was suddenly lighter than usual. Similarly, a person may say without an objection from scientific scepticism that they have had an experience that was like doing astral travel. If they say that they actually did astral travel, and if that means something in particular in the physical world, our skepticism comes up.
So, to make it a little simpler than it is perhaps, there is the Interior and the Exterior. Each of us experiences our own Interior. We can keep safely to high standards of scientific-sceptical analysis by speaking of our experience of our Interior as our Interior. When we infuse our claims with claims or implications on the Exterior, we will be coming short in the scientific-sceptical standard of analysis until we back it up. Now Science (this kind we call ‘Science’ now in school) is all about the Exterior. As a society, we are incomparably more advanced in the Science of the Exterior than we are in the sciences of the Interior.
Let me label a Science of the Exterior ( and that is what ‘western’ science is) and E-Science, E for Exterior. A ‘science of the interior’, we can label an I-Science, I for Interior. Certainly, one can object to the use of the word ‘science’ in an I-Science, and/or ask, what exactly is an I-science. And that is in itself a very big subject which can be left to another day.... And, Alvin, your recent post about what is ‘truth’ impinges on those questions...
What is called ‘Yoga’ is at once, in its manifestation in the world, any number and mix of the following:
1. An I-Science, with many E-claims that are very spurious and which I think probably wrong, and certainly unproven (true magical siddhis and so on)
2. An I-Science attended by much cultural-political interpretations, practices and social arrangements that are immature or overly-primitive, or, maybe more charitably, have had just their day (halo-ification of the ‘guru’and all the various cultic ‘religious’ psychisms that attend Yoga).
3. An I-Science, attended by a small body of reliable E-Science about catalyzing ‘Enlightenment’
It is 3. that I really care about. And that, I would say, is what AYP is cultivating.
Now, an I-Science an be good or bad, refined or primitive in itself. In other words, it can have high quality or low quality. What I am aiming for (and hope to contribute to) is a quality I-Science with an attending, quality E-Science.
Now, to answer your question: What have I experienced? And, (I’ll add), how do I interpret what I have experienced?
As a result of doing mantra-yoga (the same kind of meditation as in AYP lesson 13 and Yogani’s book ‘Deep Meditation’, I experienced immediately very profound subjective effects of deep bliss, restfulness and a mind that was suddenly much quieter, and at the same time, my mind had changed in a way that is hard to express --- let me just say that it was something like going ‘higher resolution’. If my field of experience was a screen, it went higher resolution. It was attended physically with a very profound automatic slowing of the breath.
I am convinced that this was, in words, the Savikalpa Samadhi of the Yogis. I am skeptical as you are, but I can say that Savikalpa Samadhi is no more imaginary than smallpox is imaginary. And I can also say that it is subjectively as significant an experience as recovering from smallpox would be.
I don’t so much like explaining what my experience of Samadhi was like, particularly in the written word. Because it is so hard to explain, and trying seems to be a chore. It is easier in person, and even then, hard.
But I can say what happened after it. Immediately my body started to change. I felt lighter and began to refuse heavier food. Within days my back complained that my matress was too soft (awakening intelligence in the body) and I had to change my matress. My sleep was deeper and more refreshing. My life was happier. I was almost ‘freed from all diseases’ (including leprosy and tuberculosis), as they like to say in all the ancient yogic texts. 
Now, not everyone who does meditation by any means gets Savikalpa Samadhi. I recognize this. I also recognize that if the experience came in more slowly, we might not notice the changes so dramatically. Therefore, people who are doing deep meditation over a long period of time may be experiencing a more gradual and therefore less dramatic but ultimately just as profound a samadhi.
It’s like this (I have an earlier post about this) – if you live in the Antarctic and suddenly get a Mediterranean breeze, a sudden shift to Mediterranean inner weather, you will notice it instantly. If you migrate over the period of years from the Antarctic climate to Mediterranean climate you may not notice any sudden change at any point in time. But you may notice a profound change on reflection.
There is Samadhi-the-instantaneous-weather-change ( Savikalpa Samadhi ) and Samadhi-the-long-term-climate-change ( Nirvikalpa Samadhi, with all sorts of school-varying grades and definitions).
The theory is that if you can dip in Savikalpa Samadhi on a regular basis, your eventual migration into Nirvikalpa Samadhi is more or less assured.
When Yogani talks about ‘Inner Silence’, he is, from my perspective anyway, talking about Samadhi. This 'Inner Silence' can be the instantaneous-weather type or long-term-climate type, often without a need for a specific distinction.
So I was blessed with a very profound and very direct ‘proof’ of the power of Yogic practices simply because of my experiences.
Now, I haven’t had Kundalini experience except a little in the last year. Twice actually, one much more profound than the other – more like one-and-a-half times than twice. But even before I had it I ‘knew’ ‘Kundalini’ to be real because I knew Samadhi to be real, because I could see that the community that is talking about Samadhi (and is right about it) is talking consistently about Kundalini, and has every reason to be right about it. Or you could say I very sensibly believed in Kundalini because I knew the reliability of the community that was talking about it.
The tradition of Yoga is actually in a very junior state in terms of knowledge, though it has some of its sights in very good order. Here is what I believe about it (not all people who believe in Yoga believe in exactly these things):
- There is enlightenment.
- Enlightenment is biological.
- Enlightenment is a deep awakening of the body/mind’s intelligence.
- Yoga is a body of knowledge which, by its application, tends to catalyse enlightenment. In some ways it is more ‘Enlightenment Engineering’ than ‘Enlightenment Science’
- It is by no means a perfect and fully developed body of knowledge.
- Many try, but I think only some become significantly enlightened. The result is probably the product of good practices AND favourable genetics.
- I don’t think there is such thing as ‘fully enlightened’.
That’s it from me for today. I hope that at least partially answered your question and you can get back to me if you want me to fill some of it out more.
Best regards,
-David.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 20 2005 6:33:00 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 5:13:21 PM
|
Hi Alvin and David:
Very interesting discussion. On the E-science side there are quite a few parameters which can be measured that verify something going on during and after deep meditation. And this kind of research has been done by many in a variety of traditions over the last 40 years or so.
One of the most obvious parameters is reduction of breath rate -- reduction of oxygen consumption due to reduced metabolism. Most anyone who does deep meditation will at some point experience a reduction in breath rate, or even a complete stoppage. The thing to do with this when noticed is easily come back to the mantra.
Because the slowing or stoppage of breathing can be an attention grabber, it is covered in some detail in the new Deep Meditation book. I mention it here because it is an easy-to-spot E-science thing that verifies something is happening in deep meditation. It is completely automatic during certain stages of inner purification. In the kriya yoga lines a lot of attention is given to breath suspension. It becomes a goal, because it is considered to be analogous with samadhi. Maybe so, but we can be in samadhi while breathing and walking around too. That is a more advanced stage -- in samadhi and being active in the world. I call it "stillness in action" -- it is inner life pouring out into the world in the form of divine love. In AYP deep meditation, breath suspension is not the goal. It is a by-product of natural spiritual evolution. It is also an E-science indicator of inner developments occurring.
There are many other E-science parameters like this that can be measured, and I expect this will be the course of continuing scientific investigations on yoga practitioners in the years to come.
As for kundalini -- that one has even more E-science parameters. However, many of these "symptoms" can be confused with mental and physical pathologies that have been catalogued in the medical profession (see recent posting touching on this). So the measurements on states involving energy movement in the nervous system and the many internal and external effects associated with this will require a lot of sorting out before the E-science and I-science aspects of advancing enlightenment in the ecstatic realms can be fully understood.
But there is no need to lament this fact. It is the way of science -- application of means, resulting effects, refinement of means, more application, better effects, etc. Like that, round and round goes the optimization process to ever higher levels of useful application...
The Wright brothers managed to get that flimsy first airplane off the ground and fly it quite well, even though they knew little of aeronautical engineering. The fact that the airplane flew was enough to get the scientists working on understanding the natural principles involved and refine the application of them to the point where we can now walk onto a jet and go anywhere in the world in a few hours at will. Yoga will go through a similar evolution. Pretty exciting.
You are right David. Though yoga and other systems of spiritual development have been around a long time, we are engaged in a fledgling science here, with much yet to be learned. It is a science that has vast potential to improve the quality of life of all human beings, as much or more than any applied science humankind has availed itself of so far.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 20 2005 : 6:58:38 PM
|
Dear Alvin,
When I received shaktipat I was not told of any results to expect.Guruji did not shake his hands on me but simply placed one thumb on my third eye and I felt absolutely nothing.I was fully awake and aware of everything happening to me for all four days that the shaktipat took place. 'Usual' experiences are different for everyone.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 05:04:03 AM
|
Nice sharing, David. I can also feel the silence and peace from meditation, but not so deep, and not always have it. How long have you been practising? I mean meditation (or other practises as well??) and AYP respectively.
riptiz, your personal experiences do nothing to support the claims of "Shaktipat". My parents or my girlfriend can drive me crazy (and with some "real" pain in my heart area) with just a single sentence. But they cannot do so on you, probably. So I would not feel surprise if some people really feel something towards "Shaktipat". Afterall, psychological effects are linked to your physical sensations, just as the above example from my own experience. But the shaktipat guy CLAIM more. At least a good proportion of them (including Sahaja yoga, whether you consider their method "Shaktipat" or not) say that as long as you have the desire, you will get experience for sure. That's certainly not true. I can even propose that as long as you are rational and critical enough towards their methods, you are sure to have NO real-enough experience. That's different from, say, sport.
To support their genral claims, (or at least partially support) the only way is to do a controlled experiment (by a reliable third party!!)just as those I've describe, not anyone's experience.
Before such experiments have been performed, I can only say, at most, that the whole teaching (including but not just the shaktipat part) of these guru is somehow like the literature like Shakespeare--- they can have powerful effects on some people, but not everyone. And the effects, I believe (which you won't agree), are due to psychological ones, although it can certainly extends to physical ones.
Just as in the court of most developed countries, it should be the one who make claims to prove what they claim (rigorously and objective, not just by personal experiences), in stead of the others to prove the otherwise.
By the way, the guru you're describing are very suitable for such experiences as there are no body touch. (or at least no shaking??)
A question on the different "experiences" you've describing: how many of them have a obvious enough objective effects which are impossible to obtain in usual ways? If your character changes, that's not enough because even reading a quote from Shakespeare or bible can do te same thing for some people. But if some of you turned into a genius suddenly and became one of the best writer in the world; or if someone proved the Goldbach conjecture/Riemann Hypothesis (both well-known unsolved problems in mathematics) because of a Shaktipat; or if your guru can treat, say at least 50% of the cancer patients who are coming to him; that would be objective enough for the "serious" people, for the whole world to start looking at "Shaktipat". It's not to say that these things are more important, but they can certain serve as a rather objective evidence of the effectiveness of "Shaktipat". |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 12:06:48 PM
|
Dear Alvin,
You should read some research on shaktipat and then you will see that 'shaktipat' is both pshycological and physical.Yogani lists 'The Kundalini Experience' by Lee Sanella, M.D.which I have recently read which gives you scientific facts although I do not need to read this to validate the effects.I'm afraid you are going to have to experience shaktipat for yourself to be convinced.My sadguru does not claim 'more'only that he awakens the Kundalini by shaktipat.He is only there to help others on their path and does not live lavishly.After shaktipat one evening while sat outside in the ashram I could hear Guruji chanting in a room nearby. My hands started shaking with the effects and I was struggling to hold my tea.I certainly was not wishing for this so I could spill hot tea on myself.I suggest your time would be better spent in practice, rather than doubting shaktipat and branding all Guru's who give this to be fakes.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 3:24:40 PM
|
Yogani said:
The Wright brothers managed to get that flimsy first airplane off the ground and fly it quite well, even though they knew little of aeronautical engineering. The fact that the airplane flew was enough to get the scientists working on understanding the natural principles involved and refine the application of them to the point where we can now walk onto a jet and go anywhere in the world in a few hours at will. Yoga will go through a similar evolution. Pretty exciting.
Whereas Yoga is a Science in its early stages, I think in the far-distant future (or maybe the time is closer than I think...) when these things are understood deeply at a mechanistic/causal level, I think the Yogic Scientists of that time will look back in awe at the ancient Yogis. They will be amazed at what they were able to figure out and find and know, and how far they were able to get.
A little like we can look back in awe at Archimedes, and see that he was truly a giant, because of all he was able to do and figure out and get right without the theory of mechanics that was to come only in later centuries.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 3:43:30 PM
|
Alvin said:
Nice sharing, David. I can also feel the silence and peace from meditation, but not so deep, and not always have it. How long have you been practising? I mean meditation (or other practises as well??) and AYP respectively.
Alvin, I started with TM about 20 years ago. I learned the actual mantra-yoga practice from the TM organization (proud that they got no more than the $35 student's fee from me ever) and got other techniques the TM-organization teaches on the 'black market'. What I mean is that I got the techniques for free from renegade teachers and students.
By the way, my personal guess is that Yogani (he probably hates speculation about his provenance, but I can't give him everything he wants ) either learned their techniques from them, or got info from another TM bootlegger.  But this is only a guess (though an educated one) because those techniques were not made up by the TM organization anyway....
I was doing some Kriya Yoga within a few years of learning TM.
I came to AYP I think around a year-and-a-half ago now, maybe a little more (I could find out by looking in the archives since I posted as soon as I started ...)
Best,
-David
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 22 2005 4:15:27 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 3:53:20 PM
|
Dave (riptiz) said [to Alvin]:
I suggest your time would be better spent in practice, rather than doubting shaktipat and branding all Guru's who give this to be fakes.
Aha, I recognize argumentum ad-go-and-practice-more-buster-um!
Dave, this is the 'Yoga, Science and Philosophy' part of the forum.
This is the home turf of the hard-nosers --- where the hard-nosers hang out and smoke bhakti-toxic analytical cigarettes with impunity.
This is where the Motorcycle-Gangs of reason rain on the Bhakti-parades. 
Let's strike a deal --- if we rain on any of the Bhakti-parades in 'Sages, Saints and higher beings', then you tell us to buzz off (not that we necessarily will.... )
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 22 2005 3:55:56 PM |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 5:14:34 PM
|
Dear david,
If I made a personal attack on anyone who is a member of this forum I would expect that Yogani would chastise me and rightly so. Just because the faceless Gurus are not memebrs on here does not give anyone free licence to attack their integrity. Unless it is possible to say for certain that 'A' is a fake or 'B' is a cheat then we should be very careful in our statements irrespective of whether we are on Yoga, science and philosophy or any other thread.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 7:17:04 PM
|
Dave,
Alvin has given a scientist-style look at evidence on the questions (i) is Shaktiput effective and, more (ii) if effective, is it effective in the way claimed?
Cause-and effect are in the domain of E-science and I think his questions totally appropriate, and especially appropriate in 'Yoga, Science and Philosophy' (Looking at Yoga through the lens of logic')
says you:
Just because the faceless Gurus are not memebrs on here does not give anyone free licence to attack their integrity.
These faceless gurus could be under illusion about what shaktiput is, without being fakes in the sense of being dishonest (although some of them could also be dishonest or less pure in their motivations than they pretend).
So when a scientist says that something does not work as claimed, it is not necessarily an attack on the integrity of the persons who believe it does.
Alvin did not attack the integrity of all shaktiput-gurus as a class by any means.
I can say that I certainly expect that there are many shaktiput gurus who are not in the least dishonest.
I also think that, say, homeopaths are not dishonest as a group, but I note that homeopathic medicine does not work in double-blind trials. Scientists generally do not accuse homeopaths of being dishonest, but often try to convince them that they are mistaken, or ask for some convincing explanation of how these medicines could be working but somehow deciding not to work in double-blind trials....
says you:
If I made a personal attack on anyone who is a member of this forum I would expect that Yogani would chastise me and rightly so.
It was just argumentum ad ya-need-ta-go-and-practice-more-buster-um. Flame-conducive definitely, but I wouldn't myself classify it as a serious personal attack. Probably beneath Yogani's radar.
On a good forum with some depth of discussion it's inevitable that people will get a little testy every now and again and get a little flamy -- because there are clashes of cherished beliefs -- and you are not the only one that got a little flamy in the past while. I don't think an occasional thing like that is serious enough at all to warrant a chastisement from Yogani.
Cheers,
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 22 2005 7:18:06 PM |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 11:06:14 PM
|
I have also found that a good portion of alternative medicine are not effective--may be that's why they remain "alternative". It's great someone here are scientifically-oriented. I feel frustrated everytime I hear people sharing experiences on esoteric practises, only to realize that they are usually not careful enough in making their judgement in the parts that I can detect. How could I trust the objectiveness of the remaining parts then?
Open discussions, criticisms, on these methods can lead to improvement. If yoga science is to advance, the surest way is to openly discuss, and compare results in a truely scientific way. I think yoganni understands that. Tell me what else can make it advance. Sharing of personal experiences? Listening to those who are somehow enlightened?
Having said that, I agree on at least 1/2 point with you, riptiz, that my time is better spent on practising. The discussion (between you and me) gives neither you nor me anything new, right? And for me, a foreigner, typing in English is much more time-consuming than you guys here. So I will try not to repeat my points.
While there are truly effective yogic methods, there are some esoteric practices (mostly not from yoga) which are shown to be ineffective in double-blinded trial tests. Yet effective practices and fake practices are almost equally popular--- not very surprising, as many accient wisdoms (on health, say) from different cultures contradict each others as well, and they can't all be correct. There are too many factors other than effectiveness. My heart just call me to challenge these things with scientific means. If you have any evidences, show me. If a practice is truly effective, it would withstand challenges. Otherwise, let it fall--as long as it falls because it can't withstand the challenge of real science--not because of anyone's personal attack. Afterall, personal attack is not powerful.(and if we focus on what they really did, what their methods are, it's not even personal attack) But the lens of science is.
For those who are not convinced about the importance (and usefulness) of using scientific methods---we can't PROVE anything for sure like in mathematics. But we are almost almost sure that the tallest building in our area will stand there at least for a few more days unless there is something like a plane, a bomb, earthquake.... How certain could it be, even when you are absolutely convinced by your heart, when your boyfriend/girlfriend tells you that he/she will love you forever? Now we all know such things are not trustworthy, so we stop saying it gradually. Why we know that as we grow up?? --- from statistics, from objective events, scientific methods gain...... Scientific methods are simply commonsense-- the manifestation, the expansion, the vigorization of our in-born nature; our ability to deal with this world. Anyone has a sense of it, only varies in intensity. If one doesn't have this ability, he/she is just living in his/her own imagined world.
Frank-in-SanDiego, you pointed out an important point-- we can only go so far to examine certain biological parameters. We can monitor the brain waves, heart rate, etc, but not the EXPERIENCE or the CONTENT of thoughts. At least not directly, not at this moment. But there are always something we can do, as long as they do make some claims! (Unless their claims don't even make sense cognitively--which is the case sometimes!) Just as the type of experiments I've described. Also, they usually make claims on your body as well. Then we can certainly test such claims. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 07:31:50 AM
|
Frank said:
I do not believe one can measure the degree of enlightenment by a device. Yes, along the way things change ( blood content, brain waves, etc). The TM folks measured ~300 components/indicators of those that practice the technique, yet none that I reviewed suggested indications of a 4th level of consciousnes that is stable in ones awareness 7x24x365.
I believe that many such things will be measurable eventually, and maybe in the not-too-far-distant future. Already people have done studies on Buddhist monks and observed what seems like very high activity in positive-emotion centers (or something like that -- I don't know the details). I think measurement of what is going on in the brain will get better and better.
It may never reach the point where satirists would like to take it ( a printout of what you are thinking) but it probably won't be that long before significant stuff happens.
Imagine, for example, looking carefully at a supposedly-enlightened person's brain activity (using real-time MRI) and observing aggression/defensive/territorial centers firing and so on when their authority is questioned (or even without its being questioned). This capability probably won't be too far away.
Or alternatively, measurements may indeed confirm enlightenment and help us to understand it.
The moment of truth will arrive.
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 11:45:20 AM
|
In stead of further justifying the scientific approaches, let's move towards working on it. Those who are still not convinced of the values of such approaches can ignore these discussions.
David or Yoganni or anyone who cares about it:
It's known that meditation has some observable biological parameters(some call it the Relaxation Response), though these may be achieved by techniques other than meditation. What about spinal breathing? Is there any observable, objective biological parameters? I don't mean to be certain here, since spinal breath probably not yet studied scientifically. Just asking for (good) guess on what should have changed which are observable.
quote:
Already people have done studies on Buddhist monks and observed what seems like very high activity in positive-emotion centers (or something like that -- I don't know the details).
I believe you are taking about the research done on Matthieu Ricard, a monk which is formerly a Ph.D. students (in molecular biology??) of Francois Jacob. I have a glance about it on the discovery channel, but didn't have chance to finish the whole TV programme. That's the biological paramenters for enlightenment, or at least a by-product of enlightenment which is a long term journey in stead of the "immediate" biological parameters during practices. (Although, if I remember correctly, they still take the measure during meditation)
For me, such research on the "destination" are even more interesting than the "process" which we cannot expect too much. And that programme (although I have watched only for a few minutes) strengthened my faith on meditation. (But, as I know, the path of Tibetian meditation ask you to sit almost for the whole day.....)
I suggest that anyone (from paths other than the Tibetian, especially those who don't require a long sitting) who is advanced enough to voluntee to work on such researches when there is a chance. The world would like to know that sitting for meditation can be very enjoyable!! (and no need to be a monk like Matthieu Ricard)
These are researches only on the biological parameters. They may show us meditation is relaxing, meditation is of a different nature from "doing nothing", and how enjoyable meditation can be. But what about the "content" of it? Is the "blissful state" meditation induces in the long run different (subjectively) from those nice experiences induced by drugs and sex, except being longer and harmless? Do meditation transform our brain to function in a higher order? (in stead of just happier) We have to devise something to test it, like some memory tests, or other tests on the cognitive functions. I hope to see that the "calmer" state we got are not the results of slower response to the outside world. And we need to check whether those who meditate really have a better ability to handle challenges in the world,(rather than just a better handling of his own emotions, or solve problem by changing view-point instead of tackling the problem itself....) |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 12:30:21 PM
|
Dear Alvin,David,
What claims for shaktipat are we talking about?My sadguru makes no claims other than awakening of the Kundalini of which there is no doubt of.Others may make outrageous claims which we know are not going to happen for all(or any).Results of awakening of the Kundalini are different for all but I can tell you from personal experience that shaktipat from my sadguru has not given me any of the complications that normally arise from spontaneous awakenings.David you talk of science and yet claim that there is no doubt of Kundalini existing because you know the people making claims about it!
quote 'But even before I had it I ‘knew’ ‘Kundalini’ to be real because I knew Samadhi to be real, because I could see that the community that is talking about Samadhi (and is right about it) is talking consistently about Kundalini, and has every reason to be right about it. Or you could say I very sensibly believed in Kundalini because I knew the reliability of the community that was talking about it.'
This is no more scientifically proven than the things I have experienced and wrote about. In other words it is merely hearsay.I thought this was the yoga, science and philosophy thread?
Whatever claims that are made about the results of shaktipat can not be said to be common for all.Personally I have found meditation to be deeper (could be simply results of continued practice),improvement in health and greater energy channeling abilities/healing abilities.
When I was in India, Guruji told my guru and me that there had only been around 100 realised people in the last 500 yrs and in India at this time there are only about 2 or 3 people who are able to give shaktipat correctly. I guess this means that some of them are lying but it's up to you to decide who is. For those who are doubters then I suggest that you go to see Guruji the next time he is in San Francisco and decide for yourself.
L&L
Dave
'the mind can see further than the eyes' |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 1:13:25 PM
|
Dave said:
Dear Alvin,David,
What claims for shaktipat are we talking about?
Good question. You tell me --- to the repudiation of exactly what claims are you taking exception?
I had a look at what Alvin was saying earlier:
Alvin said:
But the shaktipat guy CLAIM more. At least a good proportion of them (including Sahaja yoga, whether you consider their method "Shaktipat" or not) say that as long as you have the desire, you will get experience for sure. That's certainly not true. I can even propose that as long as you are rational and critical enough towards their methods, you are sure to have NO real-enough experience. That's different from, say, sport.
Is the bit in purple true? These are substantial claims to dispute.
I would not agree myself with the bit in blue. I don't doubt, for example, that you had a profound experience as a result of shaktiput. Kundalini et al. Which makes it real.
By the way, I hadn't seen the bit in blue. I can see how it riled you up. I would not have wished to participate in seeming to diminish your experience. Sorry.
My own doubts are centered around the nature of causes, and the consistency of the shaktiput power. Specifically the claim that the effect is not 'psychologically' produced. Perhaps this is being confused with a merely psychological effect (imagined effect)? If I were a powerful spiritual teacher, I would not see a claim that I have a strong psychological effect on people, to be a diminishment of my teaching. I would hope to have a strong psychological effect on people. If that goes as far as igniting a kundalini experience, well and good. But I would not claim that that kundalini experience was not psychologically initiated.
My more significant concern is any claims about the consistency of the effect. If it is consistent, it can be easily proven consistent in the manners Alvin mentions.
Individual cases do not prove an effect consistent.
Dave said:
David you talk of science and yet claim that there is no doubt of Kundalini existing because you know the people making claims about it!
You are misrepresenting me because you are blurring away the nuances and the context. I did indeed say that I knew Kundalini to be real, from my experience. But I did not say that a scientist should believe me. All the nuances are there in what I said.
More importantly, I did not say I had a way of consistently igniting it. If I did, I would expect to be challenged on that claim. Because, if it was strong enough to be provable, I think it is very fair to ask me to prove it if I want it believed.
'Consistently' here does not mean always, by the way. There are many causes that are not uniform in producing a result. In fact this is true for most medical drugs. A statistically significant performance in a double-blind trial will convince scientists of a cause-effect relationship where the causes do not uniformly produce a result. That, in fact, is exactly what double-blind controlled studies are for.
I actually don't doubt that shaktiput works some times. But as the numbers go, I'm not so sure it is a great source of spiritual advancement.
Suppose, for example, that shaktiput has been very powerful for you. I do actually believe that. I am sorry if you have been picking up a mistaken impression that your experience was being diminished.
But, is your experience a proof for you that it has great power for everyone? Or even for many?
( BTW, it may even have been very powerful for many others who therefore tend to stick around the guru. Therefore, the group that sticks around the guru is very self-selecting as regards measuring the power of this effect. )
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 23 2005 1:23:57 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Siddhis
