An Open Question What is Enlightenment?
Koos Nolst Trenite
17 September 2002
This poster really has summed it up and answered the Question posed
- though some might not find his answer to be satisfying the
Question ('What is Enlightenment'):
Enlightenment is a way of, a mechanism for, a solution to not facing
or, more precisely, not being able to face, let alone to stop, those
who cause misery.
This is already prescribed by the '4 postulates' (self-understood
decisions, decisions that do not need inspection) which this poster,
and others of his many millenia-long spiritual indoctrination and
upbringing in this way, assign now to Buddha.
(I am NOT repeating these '4 postulates' here for you, because
these knock out your awareness to a considerable extent - they will
make you 'dazed' - and that is not the intention of MY writing.)
In order to achieve what the Question 'What is Enlightenment,'
suggests - and to actually achieve what the person who asks now
the Question would probably like to achieve - you have not only
to face those who tell you "you can not face and don't have to
face those who cause misery," but you also have to face those who
do actually cause it, AND to face rather precisely how they cause
it, and how they caused it in your own past and in the past of
others.
And 'facing' is just that - standing up to it, so that you can view
it and hold enough of your own Life Energy to be able to disagree
with what you see - which will stop the other from causing misery
now, unless he (or she) hits your Energy away again. This is
entirely different from - as for instance the infinitely wise 'Osho'
suggests and demands - seeing misery intended, but drifting or going
with it.
Facing it is holding your own Energy with which to keep your alive
and active viewpoint on it.
The 'postulates' mentioned by the poster forbid this and deny the
mandatory necessity of it, and so the state sought after by the
Questioner (a state he still believes is described by the term
'Enlightenment') will never be achieved.
Basically, the 'postulates' are those of someone who wants misery
accepted, and who wants, for whatever reasons, the individuals who
cause the misery, not actually looked at and not faced and so, not
stopped.
(This doctrine has been introduced some ten or more thousand years
ago on Earth, in order to assist in making intensely destructive
activities not opposed or not found out.)
When that state of mind has been brought about in someone, he is
'Enlightened,' like, indeed, the very wise Osho (Bagwan), mentioned
by the poster. And he has become an 'ego' who is Enlightened to feel
he is in full contact with all and with himself.
And if he is in a state of 'Samahdi' too, he is immersed in exalting
Life Energy which is substituted for Life.
To be very short:
Life is an extremely happy and extremely joyful Activity, and Misery
is not a part of Life at all, but it has been introduced into Life
(here on Earth that is) by particular individuals, in very specific
ways and these can be looked at and unravelled and the misery can be
undone, indeed, but, again, indeed, it is done by facing it and by
facing those who cause it and those who perpetuate it.
It is achieved by facing and finding out how they do so, and by
finding out what they did to cause and perpetuate it in the first
place.
Simple detective work - who, how, when, where, what to whom.
I personally am not deterred by criminals who pose as "necessary
evil" or even as "priests who care for people's eternal life" when
they really meant 'eternal death.'
It's a bit of work - very unpleasant work - to find out and face that
what is 'too hard to face.'
However, despite those who do everything possible not only to
enforce and bring about but also to prevent the uncovering of the
causes, I did uncover and came to understand more of it than any one
of the most revered and the most Enlightened.
Koos Nolst Trenite "Cause Trinity" - human rights philosopher and poet
Reference:
- 'Mechanics Of Awareness, Perception, Memory And Forgetfulness'
(13 September 2002)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.02091...@posting.google.com&oe=utf-8&output=gplain
Copyright 2002 by Koos Nolst Trenité - human rights philosopher
and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
anyone who learns from it, and (or, if he can't learn from it)
who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included, to
others who might be able to learn from it.
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
or religious agenda, but only to educate and encourage people to
judge undominated and for themselves about any organizations or
individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
(address unreadable for internet robots
- replace ' at ' with the '@' symbol)
Mike Dubbeld
As far as I am concerned the sooner people learn
the difference between Self Realization and
Enlightenment the better. This single thing
is the cause of more problems than any other
thing. False expectations of Guru. False expectations
of the publics understanding of what Enlightenment
is - as in they have no clue there is a difference
between Self-Realization and Enlightenment.
See my post below from yesterday.
Mike Dubbeld
Enlightenment only means one thing. You have
had asamprajnata samadi. As in not likely a single
person alive on the planet today. Enlightenment is
having no ego. In the history of all mankind it is
likely you can count the number of Enlightened that
walked the earth on your fingers. Self-Realization
on the otherhand is quite another story. I go by
what Satguru Subramunia says about this. When
Self Realized there is no longer any question who
you are or what you are doing here. In addition there
can never be fear of death again - in fact the ability
to have a nightmare is taken away. Even in dream
the person simply thinks - what is the worst that can
happen? - death? - but the Self-Realized know they
can not die.
The person may
or may not have psychic power but there is no longer
any question/doubt about the existence of it.
But far and away the most important thing to realize
is that the person can and is ensnared in maya in
varying degrees - depending on how long it has been
since they have dis-entangled themeslves. Which
means they have to control anger and are tempted by
all the same things as everyone else. But they can
disentangle themselves while the 'Awakened' and
the 'Ignorant' can not. A guru is Self-Realized and
teaches. People that are Self-Realized know they are
and know they are able to teach but do not necessarily do it. They may shun
the world (and the
world shun them) and lead a contemplative life
and become Siddhas and possibly Enlightened. A
huge mistake made by tons of people - both Self
Realized and not - is the belief that Self-Realization
is Enlightenment. When this happens and the person
that is Self-Realized believes it - we find them in
sex scandals. An Enlightened person could never
participate in such things. Then the world falsely
believes that an Enlightened person is prone to the
same karmic tendencies as everyone else. I can not
iterate strongly enough that Self-Realized people
are still subject to the same things as everyone else.
They are prone to 'fall'. Must control anger and so
forth like everyone else. This should be much less
of a problem because they can go to samadhi and
thus are more inwardly happy. Also from the will it
took to acquire samadhi to begin with shows strong
will to control emotions. But not necessarily. It
depends on how entangled they become in dealings
in the world/their ability to detach themselves from
it. Also the more samadhis and higher they are the
closer to Enlightenment they get. It is a huge mistake
to think gurus are Enlightened from my perspective.
Enlightened means there is no longer the possibility
of a 'fall'/becoming re-ensnared in maya.
I know the rest of the world does not think this but I
think they should. There are varying degrees of
Samadhi also so not all the Self-Realized are the
same at all. But only asamprajnata samadhi - the
highest (or its equivalent) can bring Enlightenment.
Show me someone without an ego if you can in the
world today.
Mike Dubbeld
"puma" <pu...@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:ecd7f70a.02091...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Yoga Lovers,
>
> Here I see that there are many well informed people...And they always
> talk about enlightenment...And most of them give speeches and talks
> about enlightenment...But it seems to me that this matter has
> different meanings in diffrent minds. So lets make it clear and see
> what we know about it.
>
> O.K. I will appreciate all your answers and explanations regarding
> ENLIGHTENMENT.
>
> What do you understand about enlightenment? Is enlightenment related
> only to sipiritual people? Or is any there enlightened scientist at
> all?
>
> Thanking you before hand.
>
> PUMA
"Koos Nolst Trenite" <Ambassador...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b6f518d.0209...@posting.google.com...
Scot McDermid
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:am92s9$2k8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Enlightenment only means one thing. You have
> had asamprajnata samadi. As in not likely a single
> person alive on the planet today.
I find it encouraging that you do not list yourself
as enlightened.
Brother Brahman-Atmananda
enlightenment, it is the first sign of a con artist.
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message news:<2o6i9.139740$Jo.39838@rwcrnsc53>...
grey
the ego.
---------------------------
A truly cool book:
The World Is Already Yours
Conscious living in the real world
www.alreadyyours.com (sample chapter, etc...)
Wade Humeniuk
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html
Wade
"grey" <n...@available.com> wrote in message
news:9q0koucvgg6hvf34u...@4ax.com...
Gileht.com
"Wade Humeniuk" <wa...@nospam.nowhere> a écrit dans le message de news:
awni9.6203$No6.4...@news1.telusplanet.net...
What Steven Holzner is describing in his online introduction is "karma";
that is exactly how karma works within one's immediate life.
And indeed, being aware of the whole process of karma formation is the way
to become free from its influence.
Gileht
seeking
Also this article was interesting. scientists analyzing spirituality.
he he he.
http://www.alchemind.org/neurotheo/neuronewswk.htm
-Seeking
Mike Dubbeld
I don't have all the answers. You're certainly on to something
but I would say in addition to. Ego is inversely proportional
to successful concentration. There is no doubt about that. But
comming out of samadhi is fairly dramatic. Hard to tell going
in/how far you have gone but comming out is another story.
The thing is what if no one ever told someone what to look
for - then what? I couldn't say any more than I could say about
how all the different traditions arrive at success. But the things
I listed are things that I have found over the years that most
people talk about. Long ago I was very surprised all the different
groups doing all these different things were saying things they
couldn't possibly know any other way. I find whether a person
has or hasn't gone to samdhi in the very way they speak sometimes.
It isn't what someone says about it - it is how they talk about it
that is a dead giveaway to me. Cause anyone can simply memorize
samadhi symptoms. Here I risk having my foot shoved down
my mouth as the big samdhi recognizer but I still think someone
should try to say something somewhere. For years I mistakenly
assumed certain people knew more than they did. So it is likely
that a ton of people are out there abiding there time who may
also find out the same.
There is a lot to be said about what you mention. People like
the expression 'Mind over matter.' But at least as important is
'matter over mind.' 'The purpose of nature is to set us free.'
Vivekananda Raja Yoga. By controlling the breath we control
the mind like a kite on a string. So from my perspective the
brain as the physical counterpart of the mind is affected.
The brain evolves as the result of things the mind does. Mind
is the cause/brain the effect. Not Darwinian but spiritual.
The chakra explanations to me are simply the best unless and
until I find otherwise. Until then they are the only available
relatively common ground where there is little common
ground for a variety of reasons. I humor the chakra theory
like quantum theories. The chackras in this sense are very
definite states of mind - vibratory rates. I don't know what
you are doing but there are a variety of physical things/
postures that are oriented/conductive to attaining these
states which various traditions use as effective tools to know
where everyone is in consciousness. Skillful movement from
one to the other and opening of nadis/energy pipes is conductive
to arousing Kundalini. Everyone wants to know their progress
in yoga. The hatha yoga teacher down the street that does a
little stretching exercises likely is not going to know. That is
one of the big reasons for a guru. By sticking with one
tradition with someone that teaches a certain way - at least
one person will know/can identify with you on what you are
doing. Suppose you are very advanced and you do actually get
to spend quality time with a guru. The guru will know from
psychic sight of your progress. He may also know what you
need to do to progress. But without your knowing his
terminology/method it would be difficult at best and impossible
at worst to convey that information to you.
Suppose you simply want to disgard any and all esoteric anything
in yoga and explain things physically. The practice of yoga is
for the express purpose of merging the individual soul with
the Supreme Soul in Liberation. Yoga has God as an underlying
presumption. Therefore, explanations in yoga revolve around
this presumption. It is not necessary to believe that God exists
but it is likely a person that is not very spiritual will lack the
will and skill to test that hypothesis. (Right or wrong for
Buddhists I call God the Buddhist 'vacuum'.) Faith is required
for all theories tested in science/neutrino behavior being
understood rests on the foundation of a ton of presumptions
itself/is a belief system itself. Experiments need be carried
out with very great precison. Unlike objective science the
science of yoga is introspective and therefore subjective.
The only reason I can speak intelligently about things like
headaches with other people is because they themselves have
experienced headaches and have 'reason' to believe me and
understand my headache in this sense alone. (I know you know
this but I am going somewhere with this and it may likely
not be clear to others so bear with me). So the only common
ground we have for communication for introspection is how
we feel from doing certain things. A specific set of asana's
produce a specific feeling (state of consciousness) and the
teacher gives that feeling a name in their tradition. All the
people in the class are on the same sheet of music. No one
says 'my dopamine count in the frontal lobe has increased
dramatically.' Or 'Synapse firing in the temporal lobe is
down 20 percent.'
Below is some history/fallacies and epistemology of
science as related to the Philosophy of Science. It is by
no means complete but shows some problems of getting
from yoga/(your metaphysical project here) to science.
There are no physical explanations of yoga samadhi as far
as I know. In explaning things you get into explanation
categories. In the early part of the 20'th century Logical
Empiricism emerged as a method of explaining all scientific
phenomena. It was believed that all things scientific could
be based on 2 things. Experience (of the objectifiable sort)
and logic. It was also believed that all of mathematics could
be reduced to logic. (Whithead/Russell) It was a reductionist
project. (Logical Positivism is a part of Logical Empiricism)
Biology for instance could be reduced to be understood as
physics. There would not be any requirement for biology as
a separate science. All matter was composed of atoms so
therefore all matter could be understood in terms of physics.
This movement was inspired by Wittgenstieins Tractatus.
Out of heated discussions over this attempt the idea of
'causal explanations' and 'reasons explanations' fell out of it.
The long and short of Logical Empirison was it was a failure
because it could not be used to explain a large number of
phenomena because it was strictly based on 'causal
explanations'. Worse it was not self-refferentially coherent.
Logical Empiricism could not be used to explain itself
within the confines of its own doctrine based on logic and
sense data experience. I would now like to illustrate 2
examples of the problem of attempting to understand things
strictly in terms of 'causal explanations'. It is to show that
it is not possible to understand things strictly in 'scientific'
causal expalanations. There never will be an equation that
governs human behavior. That we can somehow clinically
duplicate something in the laboratory and understand
as physical events. A highly mistaken notion held by
science worshipers.
Psychology was a fledgling science-wanna-be in the beginning
of the 20'th century. Physics had mathematical laws that govern
the universe and it was only a question of time before a
similar sort of thing would be discovered for humans as well.
Clinical psychology was particularly inclined to go along with
this notion. But the question was asked - what is it that makes
an enterprise scientific? The answer came about that what makes
an enterprise scientific is if it could yield a scientific explanation.
We are all taught in school that science uses 'the scientific method.'
There is no such thing. Philosopher of Science Carl Hempel in the
1950's and 1960's was one of the influential people in the quest
for the Holy Grail of the 'Scientific Method.' He proposed what he
called the 'Nomological Deductive Model of Scientific Explanation.'
According to this model a phenomena has a scientific explanation
if it is an instance of a universal law known to be true. For example,
F = MA. If I drop a shoe and it falls to the ground, the answer to
the question 'Why did the shoe fall to the ground?' is that it had
to fall to the ground. The shoe falling to the ground is covered
under the universal law of gravitiation and is an instance of such
a law.
Well what about psychology? There isn't a universal law
to be found as unwavering as Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation.
Hempel realized this and for this he said for enterprises that could
not provide full-fledged scientific explanations they provided
an 'Explanation Sketch.' Such as found in statistics with probability.
The Law of Supply and Demand in economics does not follow any
hard and fast rule but is fairly reliable for instance. An Explanation
Sketch is a very reliable statistical law. Now there may be in clinical
psychology laws that approach the deterministic F=MA, but as
you move into areas of psychoanalytic psychology and theories of
personality and 'talking cures' - a point is reached where you are
going to have difficulty. More specifically the more social an
activity becomes the less likely a deterministic law will be found
for it. To argue that because social interaction is too complex
to be understood determinisitically is not particularly valid because
the motions of the planets are not particularly simple either. Some
things are suited to be understood better by casual explanations like
clinical psychology (like reaction time of a stimulus) but others
are not. In fact, by attempting to understand things strictly in terms
of their casual explanations in a deterministic way is not only not
a good idea, but the wrong project. I will demonstrate with 2
examples below from Dr. Robinson in his lectures 1 and 33 in
Great Ideas of Psychology for The Teaching Company (search
the web)
Imagine we are going to attempt to understand Napoleon at the Battle
of Waterloo based on physical events. We have wired each and every
participant in the battle with electrodes to monitor heartrate/breathing/
blood pressure/EEG etc. At the conclusion of the battle we have a mountain
of data on this activity. But from this mountain of data,
guess what you will never to be able to conclude? You will never
be able to conclude that a battle was fought. That soldiers acting under
orders of commanders to fullfil political agendas to realize the goals
and aspirations of the people in power defining the political order in
Europe at the time. We can not study Napoleon's in Waterloo's
empirically - they are one time events. Just like the Presidents State
of the Union Address. We can not dress up a bunch of short people
with 3-cornered hats that walk around with their hands in their pockets
to understand this. The very fact that things that only happen one time
make them historical in the first place. By attempting to understand
the battle using casual explanations/physical explanations only you
not only do not understand what happened - you eliminate the very
categories that do properly explain the phenomena. And explain is
the key word here. Explanations based on reasons are called 'Reasons
based causes'. Reasons based causes are rooted in the goals, motivations,
desires and aspirations of humans. In cultural programming.
Smith is found standing over the body of Jones with a smoking gun
in his hand. He is arrested and put on trial. We know that the gun
he was holding was the murder weapon. No other fingerprints were
on the gun. Smiths fingerprints were all over it. What the trial will
attempt to get at is if Smith did indeed murder Jones. The prosecuting
attorney brings in expert testimony that engages in a long technical
explanation of how the bullet entered the head caused an interruption
of blood in the head and how being deprived of oxygen and damaged
brain death occured. The jury is impressed but all this shows us is
that when bullets pass through the brain it is likely to cause death in
humans. Nothing specific to why Smith shot Jones. Then the prosecuting
attorney brings in a poet who gives us a poem of the nature of 'From
dust thou commeth and to dust thou shalt return.' The jury is getting
restless at this time because while the poet was quite entertaining,
the fact that all men are mortal tells us nothing specifically why
Smith shot Jones. Smith, hearing all this nonsense and frustrated like
the jury stands up and says 'Look, I did it. I shot him because I needed
the money to pay for my sick childeren to go to the hospital. He
was dying of a fatal disease and I was in his will to receive a ton of
money so I shot him to get the money and spare him some suffering.'
The jury breathes a sigh of relief. If what Smith says is true it makes
sense. They may not agree with what Smith did but at least the reason
he gave makes some sort of sense - something the jury can empathize
with/understand or see how someone could be led to do this. Smith
had motive and opportunity and the 2 came together and so on.
This explanation is grounded in reason. Not physiology. A reasons
explanation as opposed to a causes explanation.
So which is more real? Causal Explanations or Reasons Explanations?
If Smith is found guilty by the jury he may be sentenced to death.
Death tends to be a pretty physically objective thing. Explanation of
phenomena based on reasons explanations is a fact of life.
If a group in
a yoga class is moving through subjective states of awareness by
performing certain techniques they have a common basis of
understanding/assignment of this subjective feeling into the
conceptualization of some word - say anahatha awareness.
By agreement/vote/empirical evidence this subjective state is
objectified and can be discussed among the group intelligently
in accordance with the system of belief they are using. Remember
scientists similarly ground their understanding in what happens
to a neutrino in the bubble chamber in a similar belief system.
In other words to understand what the neutrino did requires a
vast array of underlying knowledge of a belief system. The
assume a ton of other things to understand the neutrino. The
belief system of the yoga class need not be any less valid.
Subjective things such as what are right and wrong are brought
into objective reality by voters of people on laws that people
are required to obey. The enactment of laws to enforce behavior
of people is the objectification of an abstract idea of right or
wrong (morality/justice). This subjective notion is objectified
empirically by vote. If someone does not obey the law voted
upon they will be arrested - physical reality will be affected.
When in a yoga class and the abstract notion of 'anahatha
awareness' is assigned to a state of mind achieved by postures
and techniques - is an objectification of 'anahatha awarness'
by that population. Again, physical reality for this group
may again be affected by this objectification in the re-performing
of the technique if someone does not agree they are experiencing
that awareness. Outside this yoga group however all bets are
off. Just like outside a voting district where laws were voted
upon do not apply in other districts. People practicing yoga in
other traditions (districts) may not do things in the same way/
enact these abstract labels like 'anahatha awareness' and
therefore communication outside a tradition or group is not
going to be valid.
This is the difficulty that arises is discussing
what is and is not samadhi or other highly subjective things
on a NG.
I don't expect everyone will agree with my short explanation of
mapping how science interprets bubble chamber results for
neutrino's as a belief system with other belief systems but it is
quite valid. For anyone interested they should compare
Classical Foundationalism with Late-Post-Modern non-Classical
Foundationalism. It deals with epistemology - how do we come
to know anything? All of science is based on cause and effect and
all of science must in the end is of necessity based on certain
underlying assumptions like cause and effect to conduct the very business of
science. Also distinctions between noumena and
phenoumena as related to linguistics. I would go into this but this
is already way too long. This is a long way from a complete
discussion on the limits of science. (some of you know who I
am talking about)
Mike Dubbeld
"Marcus E Engdahl" <meng...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:amcgar$lsjt$1...@midnight.cs.hut.fi...
> In article <am92s9$2k8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Mike Dubbeld <mi...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Enlightenment only means one thing. You have
> >had asamprajnata samadi.
>
> What if that samahdi means
Marcus there are lots of different kinds of samadhi. Asamprajnata
samadhi/Nirvakalpa samadhi are the names of the highest kinds.
Lots of people mistakenly think they are Enlightened simply because
they are able to go to these lower samadhi's. They are not. They
are Self-Realized if indeed they can achieve samdhi and there are
lots of levels of the Self-Realized. People that are spiritual but not
Self-Realized are 'Awakened' and all others 'Ignorant'. I draw the
sharp distinction between Self-Realized and Enlightened to show
that the Self-Realized can become entangled in the world and
are prone to 'fall'. Then we have gurus in sex scandals etc.
just that the person has through practise
> learned to subdue the part of the brain that usually construct the
> ego? To me that's a perfectly plausible explanation so I don't
> totally understand all the fuss about these states of mind.
>
> Marcus
cup o' tea
> And indeed, being aware of the whole process of karma formation
> is the way to become free from its influence.
Not sure what you mean here. Even someone who has understood actions
(karma) and has stopped performing actions which will lead to rebirth
can still suffer the ripening of previous actions. Moggalana and
Angulimala are two examples among the arahants. The former was
murdered, and the latter beaten as the ripening of karma, after they
had understood the whole process. And the Buddha himself was injured
in the foot by Devadatta, which was the ripening of and ill deed he'd
performed in a past life. So the Buddha himself seems not to have been
free from the influence of Karma.
Perhaps I should take your statement differently? That you meant that
when one has understood the danger in seemingly pleasant actions, that
one naturally abstains. That one clearly sees, for example, the long
term ill result of theft, killing or whatever, which outweighs the
possible short term benefit. So one stops performing such actions,
just like we don't willingly put our hands into fire.
Gileht.com
"cup o' tea" <red_te...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
9faa2d55.02092...@posting.google.com...
I seems that to answer your question I would have to bring you to an
understanding of what karma really is (not the superficial understanding you
are showing here). That is beyond my capacity for now; but I will put you on
the list of things to do right away after Enlightenment, if that is ok with
you. Until then, try to be more subtle.
Gileht
cup o' tea
> I seems that to answer your question I would have to bring you to an
> understanding of what karma really is (not the superficial understanding you
> are showing here). That is beyond my capacity for now; but I will put you on
> the list of things to do right away after Enlightenment, if that is ok with
> you. Until then, try to be more subtle.
Oh, right, I forget to mentions the zillions of subtle bodhisattvas
playing lutes on clouds of incense in the 10 directions and
gadzillions of subtle world systems. Woops. Superficial me.
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: An Open Question What is Enlightenment?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.psychology.misc retorts, thusly
>> Enlightenment only means one thing. You have
>> had asamprajnata samadi.
If you so are enlighten then how come you can not speak English?
The final determination of what is best for the patient is both the
right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering De-Medicalization by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
medical.
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: An Open Question What is Enlightenment?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.psychology.misc retorts, thusly
>I seems that to answer your question I would have to bring you to an
>understanding of what karma really is (not the superficial understanding you
>are showing here). That is beyond my capacity for now; but I will put you on
>the list of things to do right away after Enlightenment, if that is ok with
>you.
Until then, why don't you actually write something remotely coherent.
Seems to me that after all your years of attainment you have succeeded
in being a babbling idiot. :-(
--
John Gohde
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
((((((((((( Left-Brain Mode ON ))))))))))))
Richmond, Virginia, USA, Planet Earth, The Sun, Milky Way galaxy
Gileht.com
"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[88]@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
h31pougmk81kl4jjo...@4ax.com...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Gileht.com
> rambled on about "Re: An Open Question What is Enlightenment?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.psychology.misc retorts, thusly
>
> >I seems that to answer your question I would have to bring you to an
> >understanding of what karma really is (not the superficial understanding
you
> >are showing here). That is beyond my capacity for now; but I will put you
on
> >the list of things to do right away after Enlightenment, if that is ok
with
> >you.
>
> Until then, why don't you actually write something remotely coherent.
>
> Seems to me that after all your years of attainment you have succeeded
> in being a babbling idiot. :-(
> --
> John Gohde
"attainment" ???
"attainment" ???
You mean I "have" attainment ??? Gosh ! Where ???
Who stole my "attainments" ??
I have lost my "attainment" and can't find them ?
Hey, if you see them againg, please thell me right away. Ok ?
Thanks.
Gileht
John 'the Man'
Thanks for confirming that you are just an A-Hole. :-)
Cheers ...
Alexander Kalinowski
To reach the answer of that question.
Alex
--
Waiting for you to return.
Mike Dubbeld
> In article <amdfb6$lat$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Mike Dubbeld <mi...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Marcus,
>
> Hi, thanks for your answer.
>
> >Suppose you simply want to disgard any and all esoteric anything
> >in yoga and explain things physically. The practice of yoga is
> >for the express purpose of merging the individual soul with
> >the Supreme Soul in Liberation. Yoga has God as an underlying
> >presumption. Therefore, explanations in yoga revolve around
> >this presumption. It is not necessary to believe that God exists
> >but it is likely a person that is not very spiritual will lack the
> >will and skill to test that hypothesis. (Right or wrong for
> >Buddhists I call God the Buddhist 'vacuum'.)
>
> internally, without any kind of independent existence. A sort of phantom,
> really.
>
> >There are no physical explanations of yoga samadhi as far
> >as I know.
>
> advancing very rapidly, so in some time will will know how the brain works
> much better than we do now. Just maybe will will know what part of the
> brain preduces the 'ego', 'the sense of self', 'witness consciousness',
> etc.
>
> >Imagine we are going to attempt to understand Napoleon at the Battle
> >of Waterloo based on physical events. We have wired each and every
> >participant in the battle with electrodes to monitor heartrate/breathing/
> >blood pressure/EEG etc. At the conclusion of the battle we have a
mountain
> >of data on this activity. But from this mountain of data,
> >guess what you will never to be able to conclude?
>
introspection?
You are changing the subject.
> Why would that tool be valuable at all? Since you are familiar with
> philosophy, maybe you can clarify what makes introspection a valid tool in
> such things?
You need to read this.
Persinger has made people 'feel God' by stimulating their
> brain. Does that mean God exists? Some people 'feel God' through other
> means. Does that mean God exists? If it does, why?
>
> >If a group in
> >a yoga class is moving through subjective states of awareness by
> >performing certain techniques they have a common basis of
> >understanding/assignment of this subjective feeling into the
> >conceptualization of some word - say anahatha awareness.
> >By agreement/vote/empirical evidence this subjective state is
> >objectified and can be discussed among the group intelligently
> >in accordance with the system of belief they are using.
>
> Sure, and that's good. But, if some Yoga techniques create delusions, you
> will just be discussing details of those.
This is the only reality you will ever have as known to the mind.
Reality is not and never will be found using the mind. The mind is not
an instrument capable of understanding Reality. In other words your
scientific 'objective' reality is no more real than introspective reality.
What is at issue here is communication. You are not able to convey
your subjective internal states effectively so your answer is to abandon
introspection and internal states. But this is the same sort of delusion
you are talking about. Denial of experience of internal states does not
invalidate them. It shows there is a communication problem. As I
meticulously conveyed to you the exact reason why this is so I will not
do this again. You are not rational to deny the existence of a greater
reality due to your own lack of skills. You would not deny it takes
training and preparation to do scuba diving. Not everyone can have the
scuba diving experience. Nor is it possible for you to experience
scuba diving until you do scuba dive. Looking at pictures of scuba
diving is your idea (as a mind) as being equivalent to the actual
experience. It is not. If I never tasted an orange there is nothing you
could tell me to convey the taste of an orange to me. You could use
your mind to go on forever telling me what an orange taste was NOT
like. But this would be totally useless in the end. God is an experience.
When you have it you know you have had it. If you have not you will
argue with me endlessly. I have tried to convey this to you as best
I can but I will terminate this conversation leaving you with this
thought. That is your minds problem. Not mine. You will have to find
someone else that feels the need to continually justify this that or the
other - this is simply proof of what you do not know. To people that
do your rambling is basically amusing. It is not until you abandon
your mind from concentration that anything of any value will ever
be found.
I recommend alt.philosophy - they worship their minds over there too.
Mike Dubbeld
>
> >Subjective things such as what are right and wrong are brought
> >into objective reality by voters of people on laws that people
> >are required to obey. The enactment of laws to enforce behavior
> >of people is the objectification of an abstract idea of right or
> >wrong (morality/justice). This subjective notion is objectified
> >empirically by vote.
>
> See above.
>
> Marcus
Kartik Vashishta
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org
OM
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:an0qmh$n5n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mike Dubbeld
> In article <an0qmh$n5n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> >introspection?
>
> >You are changing the subject.
>
> 'enlightenment' has.
>
> >> Why would that tool be valuable at all? Since you are familiar with
> >> philosophy, maybe you can clarify what makes introspection a
> >valid tool in
> >> such things?
>
> >You need to read this.
>
> consciousness will take me much further than pondering 'who
> influenced whom to say what when' (philosophy).
>
> >> Sure, and that's good. But, if some Yoga techniques create
> >delusions, you
> >> will just be discussing details of those.
>
> >This is the only reality you will ever have as known to the mind.
> >Reality is not and never will be found using the mind. The mind is not
> >an instrument capable of understanding Reality.
>
> 'reality' for us in order to make our bodies (genes) survive and
> procreate. How does greater reality and God fit into this?
>
> >In other words your
> >scientific 'objective' reality is no more real than
> >introspective reality.
>
> undefendable and which doesn't lead anywhere. There's no denying
> the physical reality, it exists.
>
> >What is at issue here is communication. You are not able to convey
> >your subjective internal states effectively so your answer is to abandon
> >introspection and internal states. But this is the same sort of delusion
> >you are talking about. Denial of experience of internal states does not
> >invalidate them.
>
> should not be trusted.
>
> >It shows there is a communication problem. As I
> >meticulously conveyed to you the exact reason why this is so I will not
> >do this again. You are not rational to deny the existence of a greater
> >reality due to your own lack of skills.
>
> 'greater reality' is simply a product of the brain, it is possible
> that there is absolutely nothing else to it.
Inexperience.
Mike Dubbeld
>
> Marcus
Mike Dubbeld
> In article <an0qmh$n5n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> >introspection?
>
> >You are changing the subject.
>
> 'enlightenment' has.
>
> >> philosophy, maybe you can clarify what makes introspection a
> >valid tool in
> >> such things?
>
> >You need to read this.
>
> consciousness will take me much further than pondering 'who
> influenced whom to say what when' (philosophy).
>
> >delusions, you
> >> will just be discussing details of those.
>
> >This is the only reality you will ever have as known to the mind.
> >Reality is not and never will be found using the mind. The mind is not
> >an instrument capable of understanding Reality.
>
> 'reality' for us in order to make our bodies (genes) survive and
> procreate. How does greater reality and God fit into this?
>
> >scientific 'objective' reality is no more real than
> >introspective reality.
>
> undefendable and which doesn't lead anywhere. There's no denying
> the physical reality, it exists.
>
> >your subjective internal states effectively so your answer is to abandon
> >introspection and internal states. But this is the same sort of delusion
> >you are talking about. Denial of experience of internal states does not
> >invalidate them.
>
> should not be trusted.
>
> >meticulously conveyed to you the exact reason why this is so I will not
> >do this again. You are not rational to deny the existence of a greater
> >reality due to your own lack of skills.
>
> 'greater reality' is simply a product of the brain, it is possible
> that there is absolutely nothing else to it.
>
God has given us a great gift in the form of this human body.
The only purpose of this human birth, which is very difficult to get, is to
realize God and hence terminate this incessant cycle of birth and death.
This site contains the teachings of the great teacher of the 20th century,
Sri Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj. Practice of his teachings will confer on one
the state of supreme blessedness, viz.
God-realization, which is your birthright.
In order to inspire and strengthen ones faith in the Lord, we have included
some inspiring messages and the lives of some saints who have treaded the
path that we are now attempting to tread. May God bless you with unhampered
spiritual progress and attainment of Bliss, Peace and Illumination.
Above from Sivananda Website. In case you had not noticed.
Also I know lots about neuroscience. Not impressed. Still shining the
trashcan lids. Quantum mechanics will explain more about the brain
than neuroscience simply because the brain is a result of the mind
and the mind is not something physical that can be cut open and
studied. (I have emailed Robert Sapalsky in the past to ask him
questions. Familiar with 'the preacher neurochemical mix'?)
Mike Dubbeld
Mike Dubbeld
Good stuff. I should have gave him 'God Exists'!
Mike Dubbeld
"Kartik Vashishta" <gvashisht...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:f7Ol9.48751$bX.9719@sccrnsc02...
jesson
> In article <anbfve$bcq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> >> 'greater reality' is simply a product of the brain, it is possible
> >> that there is absolutely nothing else to it.
>
> >Inexperience.
>
> not deceive us if it helped us to survive?
you mean...our brains have minds of their own!?
fuck!
>
> Marcus
>
jesson
> In article <andf64$dd1l8$1...@ID-104323.news.dfncis.de>,
> >> not deceive us if it helped us to survive?
>
> > you mean...our brains have minds of their own!?
> > fuck!
>
> end result.
>
> Marcus
>
does Bush's brain have a mind of it's own too?
: 0 0 0