Soma
Resources => Stories, Writings and Other Snippets [Public] => Topic started by: Firestarter on June 28, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
-
“Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”
A direct quote from The Quantum and the Lotus, the notion of what is reality summarized by physicist, David Bohm
-
“Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”
A direct quote from The Quantum and the Lotus, the notion of what is reality summarized by physicist, David Bohm
So, David Bohm teached or rather discussed Quantum Physics with Dalai Lams, Ok.
David Bohms contribute to Physics is the Holographic Universe, of which I am sure we have some posts of here in Soma.
To some validity of our preferences, Carlos Castaneda is mentioned regarding the theories about the Holographic Universe.
-
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html)
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.
Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
-
It is important to realise that while theorethocal physics and philosophy are good tools for building models of the universe, they mean nothing without concrete empirical proofs.
Without experiments, data and test that can be reproduced reliably by independent observers, it's all just wishful thinking - speculations.
Recent theories about the "holographic universe" are vastly different from this, and the word is used in a different meaning. And they are just speculation, and they don't offer any experiment that could prove or disprove the validity of the hypothesis.
Any unfalsifiable hypothesis is useless for all practical intents and purposes.
-
I would also like to add that probably it has nothing to do with the world view of the Toltecs. It is a logical fallacy yo take two texts written in entirely different contexts and, based on a few similarities, to assume that they are talking about the same thing.
They might or they might not. Fact is that we have two hypotheses that we just can't prove with any reasonable confidence. Therefore saying that they talk about the same thing is quite a stretch.
-
Any unfalsifiable hypothesis is useless for all practical intents and purposes.
As I told my son Samuel yesterday when he would like to talk about "deep" thought about the Universe, - "I still hold on to Newton, simply because his laws is those that I can deal with in a practical way, especially when driving different vehicles".
-
I would also like to add that probably it has nothing to do with the world view of the Toltecs. It is a logical fallacy yo take two texts written in entirely different contexts and, based on a few similarities, to assume that they are talking about the same thing.
They might or they might not. Fact is that we have two hypotheses that we just can't prove with any reasonable confidence. Therefore saying that they talk about the same thing is quite a stretch.
Agree 100%, and I often say the same to people I see do this.
Still, if you take the time to imagine that Bohm was discussiong Toltec concepts, and use his ideas to help yu flesh out details not covered by other Toltec authors. Then you delve deeply into pondering these thoughts, it could lead to some very valuable insights, and shifting of perspective.
Those insights could then lead you to make valuable changes that help you grow and evolve on your path. It may be that none of this is empiracly proven, but pragmatically valuable none the less.
-
Those insights could then lead you to make valuable changes that help you grow and evolve on your path. It may be that none of this is empiracly proven, but pragmatically valuable none the less.
Hmmm, this sounds like a poetic way to say: "let's take a decision based on unfounded claims". It is a slippery slope, and I'm pretty sure that none of us here on the forum actually do this in their daily life. Our lives are shaped very much by modern knowledge and technology, and rightly so.
The most evident example of this is the Bible. The teachings of the Bible is a moral code written thousands of years ago, based on the knowledge of the time. They got a few things right, and a whole lot of things completely wrong. Thousands of years later, thanks to advances in our understanding of the natural phenomena, we can make better judgement on a lot of issues discussed there. Our moral code is better, arguably.
Still, if you take the time to imagine that Bohm was discussiong Toltec concepts, and use his ideas to help yu flesh out details not covered by other Toltec authors. Then you delve deeply into pondering these thoughts, it could lead to some very valuable insights, and shifting of perspective.
This reminds me of the craze many years ago, when some new age guy discovered Heisenberg's law on uncertainty, and went ballistic on how modern science (quantum mechanics) confirmed the fact that we create our universe when we perceive it. It is an example of somebody taking a scientific theory (http://www.notjustatheory.com/ !) without actually understanding it and used it to ponder about our perception and the world. Reaching to the wrong conclusion.
We are doing it again. Christian apologists are doing it all the time, trying to prove the validity of their Bible. It's illogical.
-
Hmmm, this sounds like a poetic way to say: "let's take a decision based on unfounded claims". It is a slippery slope, and I'm pretty sure that none of us here on the forum actually do this in their daily life. Our lives are shaped very much by modern knowledge and technology, and rightly so.
Just about any Atheist or mainstream scientist would say the same thing to everyone on this forum about our spiritual interests.
On what foundation do you base your decision to walk your spiritual path? Is that foundation 100% based in what would be considered a sound foundation of modern knowledge, and technology?
Just so you know, I consider skeptisim an essential component of my view on life. I have a pretty thorough knowledge of what a sound argument is, as well as fallacies, cognitive distortions, common misconceptions, etc. Save you some effort by showing that you arent talking to a proponent of the "new age" ideas of "believing makes it so", that can be traced back to the "New Thought" movement, and which ideas Disney makes a killing off of. Interestingly these ideas are bolstered by humanities distance fom nature, and blind trust of science, and technology; see hyperreality.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/Mst3fOl5vH0
-
On what foundation do you base your decision to walk your spiritual path? Is that foundation 100% based in what would be considered a sound foundation of modern knowledge, and technology?
I would argue that I have never actually walked any kind of spiritual path. I did have some interest in the spiritual, the metaphysical, but it was due to some cleverly worded books that now I feel had very little substance.
As opposed to you, until recently I did not know much about reason, logic and specially about cognitive distortions. I am still learning, and the more I learn the more I see how little foundation all the and arguments discussed in spiritual circles, including this forum, have.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/Mst3fOl5vH0
He's just waxing philosophical thoughts about perceptions. Drawing analogies left and right.
Since 1960 we made lots of discoveries about how the human brain and our perception works, both on a psychological and a biological level.
Modern neuroscience is still in its infancy (50+ years), yet it can tell us more about human perception and consciousness than all other "sacred" books put together.
Discoveries that can actually be tested, repeated, performed by others, proved or disproved.
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.U8lxuhnfrqA
I'll just leave this here.
Granted it's not much, and more research is needed to confirm it or disprove it, but anything is infinitely more than 0.
-
What brought you here was just words in a cleverly written book? How unfortunate.
I can test all the ideas in the sacred books of the world, others can repeat those experiments. When it comes to my personal experience of reality...
and Rudi this is an essential point, I hope I can convey it adequately to you...
it doesn't matter one iota whether anyone else can have the same experience of reality as me. It isn't even a little important to me. My experience is MINE, and I want it to be as uniquely my world as possible. What a dull drab world it is to live in the limited survival based fixation of the masses. Such is to live only to die.
I will die, but before I do will live savoring every morsal of experience. I will measure how well I have lived not by whether or not my experience is empiracly verifiable, but by the poetry I have infused into my bones. By whether or not I can see what is on the other side of the horizon of materiality.
To have forgotten that science is poetry, is to neglect what science essentially is for. Science as a whole is alive, it has an essential nature, and you can commun with it.
All the greatest scientists had poetry in their heart, and could see the poetry in science.
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.U8lxuhnfrqA
I'll just leave this here.
Granted it's not much, and more research is needed to confirm it or disprove it, but anything is infinitely more than 0.
I was typing up a point by point critique of the superficial in this experiment, then my browser crashed, and I lost it. Oh, well.
You are right it isn't much. I would also say they have likely discovered something of great value, just would bet it isn't what they think it is.
-
I would argue that I have never actually walked any kind of spiritual path. I did have some interest in the spiritual, the metaphysical, but it was due to some cleverly worded books that now I feel had very little substance.
You've read Castaneda? And if I recall correctly Gurdjieff? You are saying these are just cleverly worded books?
Do you meditate, or have you meditated? If so how much, and how often?
-
“That night Koch... tacked Chalmers down at a cocktail party for the conferencees and chastised him for his speech. It is precisely because philisophical approaches to consciousness have all failed that scientists must focue on the brain, Koch declared in his rapid-fire German-accented voice, his rubberneckers gathered. Chalmers's information-based theory of consciousness, Koch continued, liek all philosophical ideas, was untestable and therefore useless. "Why don't you just say that when you have a brain the Holy Ghost comes down and makes you conscious!" Koch exlaimed. Such a theory was unnecissarily complicated, Chalmers responded drily, and it would not accord with his own subjective experience. "But how do I know that your subjective experience is the same as mine?" Koch sputtered. "How do I even know you're conscious?”
― John Horgan
-
I was typing up a point by point critique of the superficial in this experiment, then my browser crashed, and I lost it. Oh, well.
You are right it isn't much. I would also say they have likely discovered something of great value, just would bet it isn't what they think it is.
The reason why science is much better suited at discovering how the world works is not because things are what "we think".
Scientists make discoveries, they make a hypothesis based on said discovery, then they actually go and try to disprove it as hard as they can. If the additional evidence contradicts the initial theory, they adjust it and start over from there. It us a process where we follow the evidence to a conclusion, through analysis and trial and error.
I'm sure you know this.
Faith based "sciences" however take a theory and try to make the evidence fit their theory. They say "this is what consciousness is", then they set out to prove it, using a process of manipulating, discarding or simply ignoring evidence.
-
What brought you here was just words in a cleverly written book? How unfortunate.
I can test all the ideas in the sacred books of the world, others can repeat those experiments. When it comes to my personal experience of reality...
and Rudi this is an essential point, I hope I can convey it adequately to you...
it doesn't matter one iota whether anyone else can have the same experience of reality as me. It isn't even a little important to me. My experience is MINE, and I want it to be as uniquely my world as possible.
Doesn't matter an iota? I think it does more than you think. Every time you sit in the car, or take a plane to fly somewhere or go to the doctor you are hoping that their reality matches yours.
When you go to the doctor, you actually do it because you know, with a reasonable confidence, that he experiences reality (about the human body) like you. It matters to you, otherwise you would go to a spiritual healer.
Having poetry in heart does not require faith, and understanding how things work do not eliminate the poetry of it. A rainbow is not less beautiful once you understand that it's caused by the light refracting on the water molecules. So a thunder is not a sign of the wrath of God, it is just electric particles discharging in the air. If anything, knowing this makes it just more awesome.
The world is full of awesome phenomae, we don't need to invent stories to make it beautiful.
-
I can test all the ideas in the sacred books of the world, others can repeat those experiments.
Do you know who else told me the EXACT same thing?
Two Mormons tying to convince me that God exists and that the Bible, theirs, is factually true. And only if I would open my heart and listen, I would see the revelation.
So. I have two people claiming two contradictory truths about reality. How do I go about deciding which one is more reasonable?
I could set out to find the answer myself, open my heart, meditate, do some experiments, bla bla bla.
Now we have THREE contradictory descriptions of reality.
If we didn't care about trying to find models of the physical reality consistent between each other's "reality", we wouldn't be here as a species.
We know from experience that some mushrooms are poisonous, because we have plenty of prior evidence for it. When you walk in the forest and come upon one, you don't say "you know what? I don't care what others experienced, my reality is mine, and I want to find out if this mushroom is poisous".
You'll go extinct very fast.
-
When it comes to my personal experience of reality...
Quoting myself to make sure you remember my exact wording.
it doesn't matter one iota whether anyone else can have the same experience of reality as me.
There are realities, plural. Not reality, singular.
This is not a story, I came to know this, not just with my head, but through my essence, at a very early age. Before I had ever read a single spiritual book, before I was even interested in reading period. What brought me to this path was not clever words, but a deep inquisitiveness I was born with. An inquisitiveness that led me to question every single thing. When I had torn every conception I was in possession of, every belief, every story, every idea to shreds with doubt. Then I saw through my identity, saw past the event horizon of self. I was not me, I was something more, something deeper, and more expansive.
One of the many realities human beings are capable of experiencing is the current predominant fixation. This fixation is mostly about physical survival. As you said, as a species we owe quite a bit to this "reality", and to our ability as a species to have a shared understanding of it. Science is brilliant and has done a ridiculously good job of improving our ability to survive. I look forward to science one day extending human life span indefinitely. Science is good, this discussion is not science vs. mysticism.
To choose one reality, at the exclusion of all others is like choosing to live only in your closet. Or choosing to look only at a single blade of grass and deny the existence of the amazing ecosystem of your entire lawn. Like denying the existence of Chinese people, because all the people you know have never met one, and you have never seen one yourself.
Just because the vast majority of people are only aware of "the world of form" doesn't mean a formless world doesn't exist. Or any number of other ways of experiencing reality.
Let me clarify my original point, which I quoted above.
I am very interested in the realities other people experience. Whether those realities are our common, normal, survival based subjective material world, or some other possible world.
What I personally have no interest in, is arranging my personal experience of reality to match every other person's humdrum experience to the exclusion of the inner freedom to explore other experiences.
Think of the different realities we can assemble as different ways of thinking about life. Would you go to a medical doctor to learn meteorology?
I experience the knowledge that comes from the world of form, but to limit myself to that knowledge alone...it's like asking a child to never learn to read, or walk.
Have you seen the many studies on the effects of meditation?
Different effects of meditation:
http://restlesssoma.com.au/soma/index.php?topic=12117.msg86108#msg86108
-
This is not a story, I came to know this, not just with my head, but through my essence, at a very early age. Before I had ever read a single spiritual book, before I was even interested in reading period. What brought me to this path was not clever words, but a deep inquisitiveness I was born with. An inquisitiveness that led me to question every single thing. When I had torn every conception I was in possession of, every belief, every story, every idea to shreds with doubt. Then I saw through my identity, saw past the event horizon of self. I was not me, I was something more, something deeper, and more expansive.
Sounds like blind faith to me. Replace the word "path" with "God" and it's the exact same things religious people say.
You are also making a dangerously paradoxical universal statement: you had torn every idea to shreds with doubt. Except the idea that you torn every idea to shreds. It is a blanket statement that falsifies itself, thus leading us in vicious circle. Absolute thruths lead us nowhere.
To choose one reality, at the exclusion of all others is like choosing to live only in your closet. Or choosing to look only at a single blade of grass and deny the existence of the amazing ecosystem of your entire lawn. Like denying the existence of Chinese people, because all the people you know have never met one, and you have never seen one yourself.
I'm not denying the possibility of the existence of anything. All I am saying is that before I can claim with reasonable confidence that something exists I must have proof. I don't have, and I don't have to.
An important point here is that, you are trying to shift the burden of proof on me. When you claim that there are other realities (Chinese people) it is your task to prove it, not mine to disprove it.
Until now your only arguments are philosophical and metaphorical, which though logically sound (arguably), they don't match my observations and the vast majority of the others'.
Have you seen the many studies on the effects of meditation?
Different effects of meditation:
http://restlesssoma.com.au/soma/index.php?topic=12117.msg86108#msg86108
Just what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. You can't just take the findings of modern science and apply it to fit your preconceptions about meditation. Notice how all the articles talk about the effects of meditation on the human emotions, creativity, perception of pain - the BRAIN. They don't talk about soul, double, energetic body.
I wonder if you have the strength to watch through this video with straight face. By your account, his "reality" should be just as valid and worthy of consideration as yours. His knowledge comes from the same absolute conviction as yours.
http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70
-
I recall a time when Muffin had the most incredibly mystical dreams of anyone here in Soma. In one dream he made his way to the 'airport' in the mountains, from which, those who know realise, the flight of spirit begins. He didn't know what to do with these mystical dreams, nor whether he would find a country to live in. But that was all long ago now. He stabilised his life, ditched the woman who helped him secure his 'country', then set off to find the world. That journey took him further from his mystical soul till he felt so alienated from his own spirit that he became desperate to find something with meaning.
He travelled across the vast world of Europe, then even further to the land of a completely opposite culture to his original: Brazil. Once there he didn't mix with the Brazilians, but did find himself in the semi-jungle area. Unfortunately he remained asleep, expecting the world and spirit should come to him, such that when the critical moment happened, he missed it, because he expected 'they would fetch him', like one of the Murdock kids. No one fetched him, because in this life it is always our responsibility to sit at the front row of the class, and to be absolutely sure when the boat leaves, we are the first on board.
Now he would like to think that there never was anything in that mystical part of his soul. Alas, that approach still doesn't bring any satisfaction, only bitterness that he has lost contact with something he once cherished.
What he doesn't know, is that his mystical side has never left him, and even now sits beside him, except he can't see it. But that won't last long, because the dam will burst, and the world will collapse in such a dramatic way he will be swept into the chasm. Then he will struggle to recall all the navigational advice he read on this forum. The only question, is when?
Personally, I think he knows how to bring this event about himself, but he is too much a coward to take that step. So he has to wait until his double strikes. Whatever... the result is not in question, only the timing. Which methinks is brewing fast in the bowels of the castle.
-
Amazing knowledge Michael. How do you know?
You missed my trip to Iran and Estonia. How do they fit in your narrative?
-
Personally, I think he knows how to bring this event about himself, but he is too much a coward to take that step. So he has to wait until his double strikes. Whatever... the result is not in question, only the timing. Which methinks is brewing fast in the bowels of the castle.
All I hear is: something something something sometimes somewhere will happen. Vague like like all prophecies. Not real knowledge.
You are a smart man Michael, you know that there must be a reason why I returned after such a long absence. You also probably suspect that I am not merely here to discuss the merits of reason vs. Mysticism.
Do you know what I am up to? No.
-
, ditched the woman who helped him secure his 'country', then set off to find the world.
Technically she ditched me, but I'm sure you have an explanation on how she leaving me was actually me leaving her. ;)
You got some other facts wrong too, just by the virtue that you could have never known because I never told to anyone. You are just making educated guesses.
-
Just what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. You can't just take the findings of modern science and apply it to fit your preconceptions about meditation. Notice how all the articles talk about the effects of meditation on the human emotions, creativity, perception of pain - the BRAIN. They don't talk about soul, double, energetic body.
I wonder if you have the strength to watch through this video with straight face. By your account, his "reality" should be just as valid and worthy of consideration as yours. His knowledge comes from the same absolute conviction as yours.
http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70
Rudi, your mistake is that you are interpreting what I am saying by comparing me to various faith based perspectives. You are also recycling stail arguments I have heard a million times.
You are absolutely right about those studies. I don't post them to try and make a point about the existence of any metaphysical concept. You obviously think that is why I posted that, but there is nothing in my actual wording to say that is why I posted it. I shared that only to show that meditation has a possitive effect. That it's effect is one that literally alters physiology, and if you read through enough studies you might even notice that the effect meditation has on physiology doesn't seem to have anything to do with what a person believes.
The foundation of why I walk my path is not based in the ideas, but in the experiences I have had. Call me a psychonaut if that helps you understand. The difference is that faith based people's feel compelled to argue their point with one another, that they have to justify their position. I do not need this, that isn't why I am discussing this with you. They might say, my faith enables me to experience this or that. They might say I have this experience and that is why I believe what I do. I neither need belief, or faith to give me the experiences I have had, nor do I need to explain my experiences with various beliefs. I may describe my experience with certain words, I might ponder certain potential explanations, but make no mistake I do not believe those words, descriptions, or explainations. They are just tools I utilize.
When you get down to the nity gritty, I don't care if there is any actual spiritual plane of existence, any "energy body". That doesn't matter, what matters is that I explore something immensely uplifting to me personally. That was the essential point I tried to make, that I don't give a flying flower what anyone else's reality is. I will seek the 'spirit' or whatever one might call it, whether it has 'verifiable existence or not'.
You say his reality has the same absolute conviction. The only thing I expressed absolute conviction in, is my desire to seek my own path, whatever it is. I have no conviction about whether or not it fits anyone else's defintion of what is real. I could very well be fooling myself and not know it. I do not believe I am right, I don't need to believe I am right.
You may call this faith, and in a sense you are right, and wrong. Faith is an absolute conviction in something. You can not say I have absolute conviction, as I do no believe I am right. Do I act as if I have absolute conviction? Yes! I act it so well, there are times I forget that I am acting, and this allows me to push past limitations. Yet I always come back to my basic skepticism, a skepticism so strong I don't even know for certain the computer I am typing on right now exists, and that is the way I like it. I regularly reaffirm this fundamental skepticism, doing so aids me in changing the contents of my mind. It's a multi-pronged approach. I can engage in it, because I do not accept any one position as more right than another. Only thing that matters is that I choose the position I want to be in.
Perhaps later I'll say more, but I'm leaving for a trip soon.
-
No time now, but I found this for you:
"'Two very important practical conclusions follow from this [character of the historical process],' writes Lenin,5 continuing the passage from which I have just quoted. 'First, that in order to fulfil its task, the revolutionary class [i.e. the class of those who want to change either a part of society such as science, or society as a whole] must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception [it must be able to understand, and to apply, not only one particular methodology, but any methodology, and any variation thereof it can imagine] . . .; second [it] must be ready to pass from one to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.' 'The external conditions', writes Einstein,6 'which are set for [the scientist] by the facts of experience do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted, in the construction of his conceptual world, by the adherence to an epistemological system. He, therefore, must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist. . . .'
Now it is, of course, possible to simplifY the medium in which a scientist works by simplifYing its main actors. The history of science, after all, does not just consist of facts and conclusions drawn from facts. It also contains ideas, interpretations offacts, problems created by conflicting interpretations, mistakes, and so on. On closer analysis we even find that science knows no 'bare facts' at all but that the 'facts' that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in tum will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those who invented them. Conversely, a little brainwashing will go a long way in making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchangeable rules.
Scientific education as we know it today has precisely this aim. It simplifies 'science' by simplifYing its participants: first, a domain of research is defined. The domain is separated from the rest of history (physics, for example, is separated from metaphysics and from theology) and given a 'logic' of its own. A thorough training in such a 'logic' then conditions those working in the domain; it makes their actions more uniform and it freezes large parts of the historicalprocess as well. Stable 'facts' arise and persevere despite the vicissitudes of history. An essential part of the training that makes such facts appear consists in the attempt to inhibit intuitions that might lead to a blurring of boundaries. A person's religion, for example, or his metaphysics, or his sense of humour (his natural sense of humour and not the inbred and always rather nasty kind of jocularity one finds in specialized professions) must not have the slightest connection with his scientific activity. His imagination is restrained, and even his language ceases to be his own. This is again reflected in the nature of scientific 'facts' which are experienced as being independent of opinion, belief, and cultural background.
It is thus possible to create a tradition that is held together by strict rules, and that is also successful to some extent. But is it desirable to support such a tradition to the exclusion of everything else? Should we transfer to it the sole rights for dealing in knowledge, so that any result that has been obtained by other methods is at once ruled out of court? And did scientists ever remain within the boundaries of the �raditions they defined in this narrow way? These are the questions I Intend to ask in the present essay. And to these questions my answer will be a firm and resounding NO."
http://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf
-
The reason why science is much better suited at discovering how the world works is not because things are what "we think".
Scientists make discoveries, they make a hypothesis based on said discovery, then they actually go and try to disprove it as hard as they can. If the additional evidence contradicts the initial theory, they adjust it and start over from there. It us a process where we follow the evidence to a conclusion, through analysis and trial and error.
I'm sure you know this.
Ok, I am what you call a scientist. And I am about to celebrate 100 citations of one of my papers. In a small area of science this is called a Classic Citation.
Now, what triggered Dr Bohm was actually an experiment where it showed up that electrons was reacting beyond the speed of light.
The second part of Bohms theory comes from the reducing rat brains experiment.
Indeed our brains are most likely a Hologram.
And when you cut away a part of our brain (or a rat brain) it is just a matter of time when the memories and ideas from the vasted part are back into the brain that is still there.
Now this is only valid for the plain brain, not the hormon based, or balancing part of the brain.
-
So a thunder is not a sign of the wrath of God, it is just electric particles discharging in the air.
Why, are you serious? Thunder in the sky, we all know is made by Thor, the god with the hammer Mjölner, when riding in his wagon.
-
What he doesn't know, is that his mystical side has never left him, and even now sits beside him, except he can't see it. But that won't last long, because the dam will burst, and the world will collapse in such a dramatic way he will be swept into the chasm. Then he will struggle to recall all the navigational advice he read on this forum. The only question, is when?
More astute observations, actually beyond my own.
I am happy to have met Rudi.
-
Jahn, I'm not sure you aware of, but there were experiments done where scientists managed to erase mories of rats without cutting parts out of the brain, simply by electrically resetting parts of it - parts that they suspected that are where memories are stored.
They did it by teaching certain tricks to the rats and then resetting the brain. The memories didn't come back, the rats had to learn the tricks again.
There is also evidence that the brain is capable of restructuring itself in case of damage. In many cases if the center of hearing is damaged another part of the brain will take over its function.
Are you familiar with the Human Brain project? It is a project initiated this year, with funds over 2 billion euros, to map the connections of the human brain. Much like the DNA project.
Our still limited understanding of the DNA told us much more about human body and gave us much better tools to treat diseases, for example. Had we followed the mystical knowledge of our ancestors, we would still be bleeding people for any number of diseases or cast demons out of people.
I think it's a bit facetious to say that we understand everything about our brain, when we haven't even taken a good look at it.
Religion and mystical tradition already knows what emotions, thoughts, feelings are. My stance is that we simply don't know, and now, thanks to advances in technology, we can start looking into it.
As one would expect, once scientists make the discoveries you will find every kind of ways to fit them to your narrative of energetic body, astral, double, soul etc.
As for your remark about the brain being hologram I don't see how it is relevant. There is a similar theory that the universe could be a hologram, but scientist don't use it in the sense you would use it. They are not implying that a universe is not real, or that we create the universe trough our perception.
-
Our still limited understanding of the DNA told us much more about human body and gave us much better tools to treat diseases, for example. Had we followed the mystical knowledge of our ancestors, we would still be bleeding people for any number of diseases or cast demons out of people.
I think it's a bit facetious to say that we understand everything about our brain, when we haven't even taken a good look at it.
Religion and mystical tradition already knows what emotions, thoughts, feelings are. My stance is that we simply don't know, and now, thanks to advances in technology, we can start looking into it.
As one would expect, once scientists make the discoveries you will find every kind of ways to fit them to your narrative of energetic body, astral, double, soul etc.
As for your remark about the brain being hologram I don't see how it is relevant. There is a similar theory that the universe could be a hologram, but scientist don't use it in the sense you would use it. They are not implying that a universe is not real, or that we create the universe trough our perception.
Read this dear Rudi, and contemplate it.
"Last, they realized that the old seers had aligned themselves with an upward shift of the assemblage point and to a position of ration. Everything, so the old seers taught, should be understood, written and rationalized. Everything was to be justified by ration. And in the extreme case, ration actually split off from the assemblage point to dominate it. This was the dark side of the predator that evolved a way to control humans through instilling its mind and mythologies into the human band through ration."
-
More astute observations, actually beyond my own.
I am happy to have met Rudi.
Astute? Michael's statements are vague and interspred with some vague references from my past to make it sound credible. The fact is that he could have wrote this very same thing years ago and it would have "resonated". He could have wrote the same thing to another person, change the few bits personal about me and it would have resonated. Pretty much like a horoscope does.
Today's horoscope:
Some enlightening conversations could occur today with a partner, Libra, possibly romantic, possibly career-related. New methods of operation could come to your attention, perhaps involving modern technology that could speed up the process and increase your income. Bear in mind that some of what you hear may not be feasible for a while. Other ideas may never be practicable. Remember to remain objective and check out the facts.
I'm surprised at how you seem to know more about me, my life and my "path", than I do. It is also somewhat embarrasing to know that you regard me as coward and somebody who just can't "see" things.
-
Read this dear Rudi, and contemplate it.
"Last, they realized that the old seers had aligned themselves with an upward shift of the assemblage point and to a position of ration. Everything, so the old seers taught, should be understood, written and rationalized. Everything was to be justified by ration. And in the extreme case, ration actually split off from the assemblage point to dominate it. This was the dark side of the predator that evolved a way to control humans through instilling its mind and mythologies into the human band through ration."
Jahn, your statements presuppose that assemblage points exists. They might to you, but I have seen no evidence for it.
As a scientist yourself, wouldn't you agree that I should accept only things that have evidence before drawing conclusions? All I have is a few books and people telling me anecdotes about it.
Gravity I can test, many theories I can go out and see their concrete effects on our lives. Until now, following the philosophy of Toltecs, the one where you discard reason as bad, made me alienated with the people around me and the reality in which I live. I look around me and what I see is that everything I touch, perceive and do is enhanced and made better if I apply reason and critical thinking.
Something I was not doing before, and yes, I was feeling lost and miserable.
-
Gravity I can test, many theories I can go out and see their concrete effects on our lives. Until now, following the philosophy of Toltecs, the one where you discard reason as bad, made me alienated with the people around me and the reality in which I live. I look around me and what I see is that everything I touch, perceive and do is enhanced and made better if I apply reason and critical thinking.
In the lore of the Toltecs, one walks in both worlds -- the Toltec's world and the world of reason, the nagual and the tonal. I'm remembering a passage of how pleased Don Juan was to look so good in a suit. Of how well he could navigate the 'ordinary' world of the tonal.
You're mastering the tonal - what's wrong with that? (Nothing!) I would take that pressure of seeking the 'mystical' off myself, and if the experience or awareness of the nagual returns, it returns, as a natural part of your path. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
-
rudi nothing wrong with not falling for bullshit. science can ground us yes. however, it cant reach areas which are mysterious. it might one day and then it might not. but just like say proving god or spirit. aint ever going to happen but doesnt mean spirit doesnt exist. i dont think youre a coward. just trying to stay grounded. but dont lose a foot in the spiritual completely cause science is not going to satisfy everything as you may believe.
-
In the lore of the Toltecs, one walks in both worlds -- the Toltec's world and the world of reason, the nagual and the tonal. I'm remembering a passage of how pleased Don Juan was to look so good in a suit. Of how well he could navigate the 'ordinary' world of the tonal.
You're mastering the tonal - what's wrong with that? (Nothing!) I would take that pressure of seeking the 'mystical' off myself, and if the experience or awareness of the nagual returns, it returns, as a natural part of your path. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Edited to add: My presumption in saying this is my impression all these years that you would not have been the stunning dreamer we have known you to be if the nagual wasn't with you strongly. That which is yours is yours. If you gave yourself the time to not be pressured by it, then it will surely make itself known to you again. That's my belief, anyway.
If you do get that glimmer, then it will be a matter of your Intent how you do or don't implement your findings.
As for "science", I don't believe you will be able to duplicate or replicate or even falsify the experiences of others, any more than one could yours. So therein probably lies a clash of methodologies.
-
"The reason why science is much better suited at discovering how the world works is not because things are what "we think".
Scientists make discoveries, they make a hypothesis based on said discovery, then they actually go and try to disprove it as hard as they can. If the additional evidence contradicts the initial theory, they adjust it and start over from there. It us a process where we follow the evidence to a conclusion, through analysis and trial and error.
I'm sure you know this.
Faith based "sciences" however take a theory and try to make the evidence fit their theory. They say "this is what consciousness is", then they set out to prove it, using a process of manipulating, discarding or simply ignoring evidence.
"
Muffin
this method requires focussing in on data specifically to exclusion actually
probably
the opposite of direct awareness required for seeing
therefore the subject is not up for grabs
-
i will tell you about dreaming then
once i woke up behind a refrigerator in a house
upon becoming aware that i was dreaming and even aware itself
i found myself staring at a sticker which i think said something like
"Achtung! Attention !" the words were very hard to work out in that state .
if you have ever awoken behind a refrigerator captured in the details of such
an exquisite narrowing of focus then you will see what i mean
the dreamer is an inquisitive little bugger yet must continue to flow on
-
As for "science", I don't believe you will be able to duplicate or replicate or even falsify the experiences of others, any more than one could yours. So therein probably lies a clash of methodologies.
False. I can tell you with great confidence what will happen when you stick your hand in fire. Not everything we experience is up for interpretation.
The only experiences that science can not predict are the mystical, spiritual, divine. Because we don't know yet what actually goes on. Yet.
In Japan a group of scientist were able to record dreams of test subjects and extract images from it. If they can do that, nothing prevents them to stimulate your brain to make you dream of certain things.
This suggests yo me that being a stunning dreamer is not such a big accomplishment you believe to be.
I'm more than my dreams, stop calling me a spiritual just because I had a few extraordinary dreams.
The same thing with feelings. Neuroscientists linked emotions to particular areas of the brain. They could trigger certain emotions just by applying electrical current to your brain. Facebook can do that without even opening your brain. :p
Emotions are becoming not so mystical after all.
Just like 400 years ago we thought that the planets orbit around the Sun thanks to some mystical force governed by an unknowable entity (God).
We don't need God anymore to explain the orbit of the planets because we figured it out and proof of that is that you can call a person on the other side of the planet.
We are bringing the nagual, the unknowable into the realm of things that we know. It is called learning.
-
what matters in duality is how what and why
that means
spiritually heart journey and awareness of those
expansion is not the same as contraction
and being able to hold both simultaneously is a path
yet im not sure science has what it takes
as empirical data is heavy
the reason Carlos was mocked by Don Juan
and the reason reason can't float the boat without the water
i guess it depends which side you would like to prove
yet it will probably left with a void in reasoning
-
The only experiences that science can not predict are the mystical, spiritual, divine.
Those were the experiences to which I referred.
-
Ig nok pengal itfal insuggafirt!
-
I'm surprised at how you seem to know more about me, my life and my "path", than I do. It is also somewhat embarrasing to know that you regard me as coward and somebody who just can't "see" things.
From where came that? That I should say that you're a coward and so on.
Our still limited understanding of the DNA told us much more about human body and gave us much better tools to treat diseases, for example. Had we followed the mystical knowledge of our ancestors, we would still be bleeding people for any number of diseases or cast demons out of people.
The most used painkiller and anesthetize in health care today is obtained from nature, and well known for before modern science. Morphine with the name from the god of dreams Morpheus.
"Opium contains approximately 12% morphine, an alkaloid, which is frequently processed chemically to produce heroin for the illegal drug trade and for legal medicinal use in some countries. The latex also includes the alkaloid codeine and its similarly structured cousin thebaine. It also contains non-analgesic alkaloids such as papaverine and noscapine." Wiki
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG/180px-Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG)
Another painkiller used by the old Greek and the Cherokee is Salicyclic acid, found in the tree Salix alba
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Salix_alba_Morton.jpg/250px-Salix_alba_Morton.jpg)
The Cherokee and other Native Americans used an infusion of the bark for fever and other medicinal purposes for centuries.[12] The medicinal part of the plant is the inner bark and was used as a pain reliever for a variety of ailments. Wiki
The native indians in the Amazona went out in the bush and asked the plants what they could be used for. The number of useful herbs in the Amazonas is to me unknown, but everyone knows about the Curare which is a mix, mainly from the family Loganiaceae.
-
following the philosophy of Toltecs, the one where you discard reason as bad, made me alienated with the people around me and the reality in which I live. I look around me and what I see is that everything I touch, perceive and do is enhanced and made better if I apply reason and critical thinking.
Of course we should use reason and critical thinking. No Toltec would discard reason as bad. That is a silly idea and I have never heard about it.
It is rather so that Toltecs put reason and critical thinking were it should be, dealing with Tonal. To deal properly with Tonal is an essential part of the warrior life. Kris Raphael had a mantra back at the Toltec Nagual Forum:
One must clean, clear, strengthen and heal the Tonal.
Myself being very tired of Nagual experiences in the early 2000's once asked Kris if we couldn't have a Toltec Tonal Forum :)
Reason and critical thinking is very good but takes us only that far. On our way to infinity, or the stars (or whatever path we travel) we need more senses than reason, senses that require other centra than the mental brain calculator.
Jahn, your statements presuppose that assemblage points exists. They might to you, but I have seen no evidence for it.
When Carlos Castaneda wrote his books in the late 1960's and early 1970's it was time for everybody to take part of concepts that had been secret for many thousand years.
One trick Don Juan used when Carlos arrived was to kick Carlos into 2nd attention. Don Juan made this transition possible with a firm hit on the location of the assemblage point.
One problem with being in the 2nd attention - is btw the same problem when being high on a psychoactive drug - is that it is difficult to remember all experiences when one is returning to 1st attention.
This difficulty comes from the different set of senses in the 2nd versus the 1st attention. It is like we talk english in the 1st attention but everything is said in Chinese (a language that we are not familiar with) in the 2nd attention.
-
From where came that? That I should say that you're a coward and so on.
The most used painkiller and anesthetize in health care today is obtained from nature, and well known for before modern science. Morphine with the name from the god of dreams Morpheus.
"Opium contains approximately 12% morphine, an alkaloid, which is frequently processed chemically to produce heroin for the illegal drug trade and for legal medicinal use in some countries. The latex also includes the alkaloid codeine and its similarly structured cousin thebaine. It also contains non-analgesic alkaloids such as papaverine and noscapine." Wiki
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG/180px-Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG)
Another painkiller used by the old Greek and the Cherokee is Salicyclic acid, found in the tree Salix alba
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Salix_alba_Morton.jpg/250px-Salix_alba_Morton.jpg)
The Cherokee and other Native Americans used an infusion of the bark for fever and other medicinal purposes for centuries.[12] The medicinal part of the plant is the inner bark and was used as a pain reliever for a variety of ailments. Wiki
The native indians in the Amazona went out in the bush and asked the plants what they could be used for. The number of useful herbs in the Amazonas is to me unknown, but everyone knows about the Curare which is a mix, mainly from the family Loganiaceae.
Ah the famous Salicylic acid, that the Cherokee discovered after they went out and talked to the plants! Are you serious?
Of course they knew about the beneficial effects of the plants, but they didn't know why it was beneficial. We humans are great to antropomorfize everything we don't understand. Back then it was because a being imbued these plants with his essence. Now we know it's the Salicylic acid, we don't need to reference any god anymore to explain it.
Speaking of the Amazon, there are also countless plants that are poisonous. The primitive people learnt which are beneficial and which you should avoid by living between them for thousands of years, through trial and error and by teaching their kids "don't eat this plants because you'll die". They didn't understand it but they had to explain it somehow. This powerful organ called our brain, specifically the neocortex, craves explanayion for everything, that's what separates us from other species. We needed and explanation and that was the best we could come up with. See the trend? The plants spoke to us. Every time we don't understand something we stick human properties to them. They made them behave as humans, because that is what they "understood".
Now we know exactly what substance causes hallucinations, we don't need spirits and talking plants to explain them.
Every time the 2nd attention or seeing is mentioned, I get the feeling that we're talking about something we don't know yet and we are pulling mythical stories out of our asses yo explain them.
Our brains evolved to do just that, and the more we learn about the world the less stories we need to invent.
Fo me this reality, this universe, is much more exciting than anything described in the toltec tradition (the famous 2nd and 3rd attention).
-
Ig nok pengal itfal insuggafirt!
You are just one big bully. I'm still unimpressed.
-
I love philosophy, and science, and I still explore mystical experience. I don't see how or why it matters what science can or can not do. I look forward to the day when science has a rigorous explanation for how mystical experience works.
Let me ask you rudi. When science can explain the mystical what would that change about my mystical exploration? Would I stop meditating, would I stop dreaming and stalking myself? Even if they said that everything I was doing was all an excersize of the imagination, I would say, it is an excersize that has still brought me greater joy and meaning than anything else in my life. If this exploration doesn't bring you that meaning and joy then perhaps it isn't for you. If science could use machines to create these experiences for me, I might try out from time to time, doubt it would give me what I'm looking for, since what I need is to be able to self-generate these experiences, but perhaps science would show me how to make that easier. How ever I look at it, sciences exploration of these issues is welcome in my book, but it would change little to nothing for me.
At the end of the day the question is; what brings your heart a depth of meaning and joy unrivaled by anything else, nothing matters more in a world divided into moment of time.
-
rudi there is probably a lot i believe that you dont. i have practiced astrology for fiteen years, and i have even debated some atheists on it, quite civilally, and pretty much how i explained it, is astrology is an art, not a science. i took astronomy in college and if i read about something with the stars, i will look at it from both angles. so for spirituality i would say the same thing. it is an art not a science. i know there are many who put the spiritual first above science, but many do not. the dalai lama even made the comment if science disproves an aspect of buddhism, then buddhism will change. but many things science isnt going to explain. it has explained a great deal, and many have walked away from various religions because of it. creation stories fall apart, no evidence of great flood, etc. but science is still learning. the tests you were showing which may have caused some dreams, doesnt explain why we dream. science hasnt explained my encounters with ghosts. science has not been able to explain how my mother communicated with me on the day she died. there is still a lot it cannot explain for me which is personal.
-
rudi there is probably a lot i believe that you dont. i have practiced astrology for fiteen years, and i have even debated some atheists on it, quite civilally, and pretty much how i explained it, is astrology is an art, not a science. i took astronomy in college and if i read about something with the stars, i will look at it from both angles. so for spirituality i would say the same thing. it is an art not a science. i know there are many who put the spiritual first above science, but many do not. the dalai lama even made the comment if science disproves an aspect of buddhism, then buddhism will change. but many things science isnt going to explain. it has explained a great deal, and many have walked away from various religions because of it. creation stories fall apart, no evidence of great flood, etc. but science is still learning. the tests you were showing which may have caused some dreams, doesnt explain why we dream. science hasnt explained my encounters with ghosts. science has not been able to explain how my mother communicated with me on the day she died. there is still a lot it cannot explain for me which is personal.
Umm, about why we dream. Actually neuroscientists have some pretty good hypotheses about the why too. I won't go into it, but the "why" science is proposing is more awesome than the fantasy world of the double.
You fall in the fallacy of believing that only because today we can't explain something, we'll never be able to. Our history shows that it is always a hasty and unfounded conclusion.
And, please, give me a break with the dalai lama, ghosts and dead people. All we have is anecdotes about them that are not verifiable.
-
why are you so upset with everyone here?
-
why are you so upset with everyone here?
What makes you think I am upset?
-
you seem angry with yourself you originally believed in the toltec, now you dont -like not believing in the double and assemblage point anymore. and when you see us here still discussing it, you seem angry we still believe in it. its just the impression i am getting from the tone of posts.
-
Ah the famous Salicylic acid, that the Cherokee discovered after they went out and talked to the plants! Are you serious?
Yes, but it was not the Cherokee that was out asking the plants. If you read my post carefully (as you should read any scientific paper or serious post here) you can see that I mentioned the native indians in the Amazonas together with "asking the plants". Is this approach (to talk with plants) alien to you?
You could read more about this "asking the plants" from Alberto Villoldo, a scientist that went deep into the Amazonas.
He has also been a co-writer of the very interesting book:
Power Up Your Brain: The Neuroscience of Enlightenment (hardcover) written together with with David Perlmutter; ISBN 978-1-4019-2817-9
In that book Villodo says that there are several substances that may inhibit dementia, among these substances he mention curcurmin. But he also says that there are plants in the Amazonas that have beneficial effects on brain degeneration, however these substances cannot be available until these substances have undergone the traditional refinement and medical tests.
-
The primitive people learnt which are beneficial and which you should avoid by living between them for thousands of years, through trial and error and by teaching their kids "don't eat this plants because you'll die". They didn't understand it but they had to explain it somehow.
I got the feeling that you use "primitive" in a negative association. To be honest, I think our ancestors were more advanced in their relation to nature than the modern man ever will be.
There are kids in London that never have seen a cow in real life.
There are politicians that deny global warming.
There are entertainment on TV all the time, just so people do not react and argue, etc.
Our ancestors had a real close relation to the environment they lived in (the unpolluted nature). The Indian natives honored the animal that they hunted, by wearing their skin and take their names.
When did we honor the hen or the cow for all the food they bring us?
Of course some knowledge came from trial and error, not all people or tribes have had the ability to talk with plants. But to be honest, how much time would a native indian have? If there are 500 species out there and you need one, should you start 500 trials? On your tribe population of 50 people? Imagine instead a situation when a family member has a serious infection and are about to die before your eyes. You run out in the bush with the aim to find something that might cure the disease and spirit leads you to a plants that might help. So you return with that plant and mother prepares it for the patient.
Now the Vikings for instance knew to carry dried lingonberries when they sailed across the world. The sailors of the 16th century did not, so the later sailors got Scurvy (Scurvy is a disease resulting from a deficiency of vitamin C). The dried lingonberries contain vitamin C, and the Vikings in the 900th century and later, avoided that disease.
Wiki on Scurvy:
History
Scurvy was documented as a disease by Hippocrates,[16][17] and Egyptians have recorded its symptoms as early as 1550 BC.[18] The knowledge that consuming foods containing vitamin C is a cure for scurvy has been repeatedly rediscovered and forgotten into the early 20th century.[19]
Early modern era
"In the 13th century, the Crusaders frequently suffered from scurvy. In the 1497 expedition of Vasco de Gama, the curative effects of citrus fruit were known.[19] In 1536, the French explorer Jacques Cartier, exploring the St. Lawrence River, used the local natives' knowledge to save his men who were dying of scurvy. He boiled the needles of the arbor vitae tree (Eastern White Cedar) to make a tea that was later shown to contain 50 mg of vitamin C per 100 grams.[20][21] Such treatments were not available aboard ship, where the disease was most common.
Between 1500 and 1800, it has been estimated that scurvy killed at least two million sailors.[22] Jonathan Lamb wrote: "In 1499, Vasco da Gama lost 116 of his crew of 170; In 1520, Magellan lost 208 out of 230;...all mainly to scurvy."[23]"
-
And, please, give me a break with ..... ghosts and dead people. All we have is anecdotes about them that are not verifiable.
But they are verifiable: they are Ellen's experiences.
-
Umm, about why we dream. Actually neuroscientists have some pretty good hypotheses about the why too. I won't go into it, but the "why" science is proposing is more awesome than the fantasy world of the double.
You fall in the fallacy of believing that only because today we can't explain something, we'll never be able to. Our history shows that it is always a hasty and unfounded conclusion.
And, please, give me a break with the dalai lama, ghosts and dead people. All we have is anecdotes about them that are not verifiable.
My experiences with ghosts are this. One when a child and I played with a ouija board with a friend. We actually made a homemade ouija board on the back of a gameboard and used a mayonaise jar. The jar moved to the letters and numbers. And things moved in the room, like my toys. And we also experiences hot and cold spots in the room.
The other was at nanas. When I was grown and had my son. I was in the bedroom and heard the tv on. I was sure I had turned off the tv in the den. I began to hear the rocking chair rocking back and forth. Then the tv turned off. I ran out of the room to wake up nana and get her. When we went into the room, the tv was turned back on.
The experience with my mother I just recently wrote about. Before she died when she was sick, I spoke of getting a pager. I told her she could punch in the number and then put *5 cause that was her birthday. I never did get the pager. On the day she died, my ex had his pager, he was with me. We woke up after taking a nap. He got a page right when we woke up, it only said *5. I got a jolt, I knew it was her. I told my ex the story what I told her, and he said when he had been laying there, he felt something 'rush through him' when he was laying down, right before we both had gotten up.
Science cannot explain those experiences to me, and they are personal. And I can never prove they were ghosts, or my mother. But for myself, I 'know' what they were. And this of course doesnt explain dreams which have come true, or other ones.
This does not mean in anyway I shun science. I just got done reading The Quantum and the Lotus, which is about Buddhism and Science. So I do look to science for answers, as well as to spiritual explanations too. But you have to understand we in here have had experiences which can be very powerful, and we're not complete doofises, we do have an inner knowing what they are. When the hair stands up on the back of neck, you get that odd feeling in the pit of stomach. Its all spirit, in the end.
-
What I don't get is why Rudi came back to a place like this, to try and debunk things. It leads me to the thought that perhaps he didn't pay much attention to the type of people who are on this forum. That he has no idea what this place is, that he never understood the material in those "cleverly worded books".
Are you seeking something Rudi? Cause what your doing in this thread isn't going to make anyone here convert to a science based outlook on life. Your efforts in this line would be entirely fruitless.
Catch my plane tomarow, unlikely I will be on again, for a week. In the mean time I'll contemplate the best way to explain my answer to Michael's beak of the Eagle question. Funny I catch a plane tomarow and today we went to the Pittsburgh Aviary. Sweet dreams.
-
:)
its silly
-
But they are verifiable: they are Ellen's experiences.
As for "science", I don't believe you will be able to duplicate or replicate or even falsify the experiences of others, any more than one could yours. So therein probably lies a clash of methodologies.
Now you are just contradicting yourself. They are either verifiable or not. Speaking of clash of methodologies, what is your methodology anyway? How did you verify the validity of Ellen's, or Michael's or your own experiences?
For me the statement that it's "Ellen's experiences" does not validate her "experiences". The only verifiable thing is that she had those experiences, because I trust that she is not lying, but that says nothing about their validity.
If I would come one day and tell you that I saw an alien, you would say: "ok, that is your experience and I respect that, but show me some proof". You would not start to believe that there are aliens. My stance towards the whole toltec tradition, and spiritual movements in general, is the same. You have your experiences that I personally cannot verify (and also billions of other humans), and all of my experiences point me to the exact opposite conclusions.
-
What I don't get is why Rudi came back to a place like this, to try and debunk things. It leads me to the thought that perhaps he didn't pay much attention to the type of people who are on this forum. That he has no idea what this place is, that he never understood the material in those "cleverly worded books".
Are you seeking something Rudi? Cause what your doing in this thread isn't going to make anyone here convert to a science based outlook on life. Your efforts in this line would be entirely fruitless.
Catch my plane tomarow, unlikely I will be on again, for a week. In the mean time I'll contemplate the best way to explain my answer to Michael's beak of the Eagle question. Funny I catch a plane tomarow and today we went to the Pittsburgh Aviary. Sweet dreams.
Nick, all I can do is to repeat the thing I said to Michael. Probably you missed it, so here it is for your convenience.
All I hear is: something something something sometimes somewhere will happen. Vague like like all prophecies. Not real knowledge.
You are a smart man Michael, you know that there must be a reason why I returned after such a long absence. You also probably suspect that I am not merely here to discuss the merits of reason vs. Mysticism.
Do you know what I am up to? No.
If you can read between the lines or the bold text, whichever you prefer, you would understand that I did not come back to this forum to discuss the merits of reason vs. mysticism or to debunk things. It just happened because I didn't get around to formulate what I came here to say yet.
Heck, your seeing should have told you that. I mean, Michael's did. His seeing told him that something somewhen will happen.
With this additional information I shared now, your seeing should be able to tell you what I came here to say. Or just take an educated guess, connect the dots.
In the mean time I'll contemplate the best way to explain my answer to Michael's beak of the Eagle question.
To be honest, I don't know what you are talking about because I didn't read neither Michael's question nor your answer. This and the "my path" thread is the only threads I read since I "came back". There, an extra bit of information for you.
-
Now you are just contradicting yourself. They are either verifiable or not. Speaking of clash of methodologies, what is your methodology anyway? How did you verify the validity of Ellen's, or Michael's or your own experiences?
For me the statement that it's "Ellen's experiences" does not validate her "experiences". The only verifiable thing is that she had those experiences, because I trust that she is not lying, but that says nothing about their validity.
If I would come one day and tell you that I saw an alien, you would say: "ok, that is your experience and I respect that, but show me some proof". You would not start to believe that there are aliens. My stance towards the whole toltec tradition, and spiritual movements in general, is the same. You have your experiences that I personally cannot verify (and also billions of other humans), and all of my experiences point me to the exact opposite conclusions.
Debate and argument are pretty useless endeavors to me. I don't have the desire to engage in them, even to be polite.
You have made your point, if I understand it correctly. And that would seem to be that you do not experience thus-and-so, therefore, thus-and-so does not exist. And if someone tells you that it exists, someone will have to prove it to you. What if someone didn't sign that contract with you, though? What if someone felt no need at all to 'prove' anything to you?
It doesn't really matter to me what you believe or accept, except inasmuch as you might expect that I comply. Then we have a problem -- just as much a problem as if some proselytizer of christianity came to the door. The anvil of "jesus", the anvil of "science", the anvil of "atheism": they're all the same thing to me. Someone insists that I adopt their worldview.
No one is shoving "toltec" or "shamanism" or "spiritism" down your throat. However, I could see how a disbelief in those things would make being in this forum difficult. You're surrounded by dreamers, and even the most scientific ones are dreamers. Indeed, apply critical thinking. That is wise. Only you can decide for yourself what you accept or don't accept. What next, though? Do you expect or wish that we all argue with you, like hordes of sorcerors and magicians piling down the hills to your house? With torches? <<--Rhetorical questions. In any case, it's not my cuppa to do so.
-
It just happened because I didn't get around to formulate what I came here to say yet.
Please do, Rudi. Say what you came to say.
-
Catch my plane tomarow, unlikely I will be on again, for a week. In the mean time I'll contemplate the best way to explain my answer to Michael's beak of the Eagle question. Funny I catch a plane tomarow and today we went to the Pittsburgh Aviary. Sweet dreams.
You are living a nice dream Nick.
You are living your life.
-
No one is shoving "toltec" or "shamanism" or "spiritism" down your throat.
Yes, that is how it works here, everyone is welcome with their ideas and opinions, we may argue about them, but all members are equally welcome.
However, I could see how a disbelief in those things would make being in this forum difficult. You're surrounded by dreamers, and even the most scientific ones are dreamers. Indeed, apply critical thinking. That is wise.
Surrounded by Toltec warriors, what can a man do?
-
"What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. "
-
Hey rudi I can only share experiences and that is that. I cannot say and would not say "believe cause my experience says this is so.' Like say with ghosts, if I had never had an experience, then I would be skeptical of other peoples claims. I am still skeptical when people make a claim. They might be lying, they might have imagined something which is a ghost, or perhaps they really encountered one. The only experiences I can validate is my own cause I was in the thick of it. And like the communcation from my mother, could someone have paged a five, right when I woke up, on the day she died? I find this very hard to believe, thus I believe it was her, somehow, someway. Also because of what my ex experienced right before the page came in.
it does seem you went to some lengths to have your own experiences, and they did not come to fruition. I can understand having doubts on things. I do all the time. Like what you said about assemblage point. I have never 'seen or felt' it so I dont know if it exists myself. Someone however may have a different experience with this. I have had dreams of the double, and for myself I feel this validated. The only thing I can think of, for you, if you are looking for experience and validation, is to gesture spirit. Ask to get some validation. I dont see why it would not happen for you. But that is what I would do to see if something could manifest for you.
-
How about Iran, Juhani?
It's funny how, out of 5+ reasons I left Estonia, you singled out one that fits your narrative and conveniently ignored the others.
Also interesting that you did not mention the fact that the biggest reason I left Brazil and came back to Europe was because i had serious health problems. You conveniently forgot that, because it does not fit your narrative.
If you decide to gossip about me, at least have the courtesy of presenting the whole story, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Or at least don't present your speculations as facts.
-
How about Iran, Juhani?
It's funny how, out of 5+ reasons I left Estonia, you singled out one that fits your narrative and conveniently ignored the others.
Also interesting that you did not mention the fact that the biggest reason I left Brazil and came back to Europe was because i had serious health problems. You conveniently forgot that, because it does not fit your narrative.
If you decide to gossip about me, at least have the courtesy of presenting the whole story, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Or at least don't present your speculations as facts.
Rudi, tell us what happened.
-
How about Iran, Juhani?
It's funny how, out of 5+ reasons I left Estonia, you singled out one that fits your narrative and conveniently ignored the others.
Also interesting that you did not mention the fact that the biggest reason I left Brazil and came back to Europe was because i had serious health problems. You conveniently forgot that, because it does not fit your narrative.
If you decide to gossip about me, at least have the courtesy of presenting the whole story, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Or at least don't present your speculations as facts.
Rudi, definitely if this is not your experience what Juhani says we welcome you to clear it up. It certainly is easy to misunderstand anothers experience. You will always be welcome here regardless to any doubts you have on anything, just so you know.
-
I haven't said this here because I know that Rudi already knows that I've missed him here, and want to hear what he has been through. I've told him so, a while back. I've been happy to see him posting, and have hopes that maybe he's ready to share the events since he almost joined the ayahuasca ceremony. (I only note that because that's where he left off in his "Path" thread.) And yes, of course, he is welcome. In my mind, he's part of everything here, even in his absence.
-
How about Iran, Juhani?
It's funny how, out of 5+ reasons I left Estonia, you singled out one that fits your narrative and conveniently ignored the others.
Also interesting that you did not mention the fact that the biggest reason I left Brazil and came back to Europe was because i had serious health problems. You conveniently forgot that, because it does not fit your narrative.
If you decide to gossip about me, at least have the courtesy of presenting the whole story, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Or at least don't present your speculations as facts.
Let us hear the whole story. I don't remember you mentioning any health problems and neither does Tiina. Upon return, you had dropped quite few kilos, demonstrated your machete and told how much your physical performance had improved.
However, I do remember you complaining quite a bit about Estonia and how people do business here and how that is not quite like what you are used to. Similarly, people in Barzil who you thought were "green" and/or "spiritual" did not turn out to be what you expected.
-
Rudi, definitely if this is not your experience what Juhani says we welcome you to clear it up. It certainly is easy to misunderstand anothers experience.
Why would I? Obviously Juhani remembers things differently than I do. He has no evidence to his claim and I don't have evidence to mine.
Why would you accept my experience (my word) over Juhani's? And if it's not a matter of "accepting," then why should I bother "clearing up" things?
Just to engage in a "I said, you said, he said" arguments?
We already established that everybody's experience is valid and sacred.
Just as you said, it's easy to misunderstand another's experiences, and that's why I see it as posturing (at best) when others try to "fill in" (Juhani) or post vague, ominous prophecies based on a few distorted and/or false facts (Michael).
-
if you say Juhanis ccounting is incorrect i accept tht as true and that your experience is different than he said.
-
This strong belief in science is kinda funny, I mean it sort of means that somewhere someone else can exaplain the world to you, but you can't do it yourself through your own experience? Someone else has to bring the proof and answers?
Maybe one day science is able to explain the world sufficiently, but that might take thousands of years. I don't think we have that time, if we are interested of what will happen to us after death. And besides that, death is a personal experience, so I don't think any scientific explanation will help anyone on the moment of death. I mean the ability of your consciousness to preserve doesn't come from someone else explaining the world to you.
Are you interested of the possibility that you continue to exist in some form after death? Can the scientists somehow offer you this?
-
taimi good questions on this. science can help us understand what is observable, but something like consciousness surviving after death is going to take a leap of faith. maybe oneday they will beable to tell us something about this but i suspect it will not be in our lifetime.
-
Why would you accept my experience (my word) over Juhani's? And if it's not a matter of "accepting," then why should I bother "clearing up" things?
Besides concepts of assemblage points here and there, I learned something ver significant from Carlos Castaneda (not Don Juan) and that was: Always tell the truth in history and spiritual matters.
So if your experience holds the truth you might as well tell it. If it serves any purpose.
-
rudi i know you are seeing this as an us them but it really not is that way. we all have a unique view of seeing things. that would kind of lead back to post one of the quote. but it really is not an us them thing going on. we all have various perspectives and experiences and all sides are welcome here.
-
Steiner referred to himself as a spiritual scientist. By which he meant that even spiritual insights and realisations should be submitted to peer review. That it was not a purely subjective matter. Sure, it's personal, but not necessarily subjective.
Gurdjieff also referred to 'objective reality'. Toltec lore is filled with knowledge that lies beyond the personal - in fact, they recommend we leave the personal behind. That is what is meant by 'a warrior considers himself already dead'.
-
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
-
Steiner referred to himself as a spiritual scientist. By which he meant that even spiritual insights and realisations should be submitted to peer review. That it was not a purely subjective matter. Sure, it's personal, but not necessarily subjective.
Gurdjieff also referred to 'objective reality'. Toltec lore is filled with knowledge that lies beyond the personal - in fact, they recommend we leave the personal behind. That is what is meant by 'a warrior considers himself already dead'.
I don't get it. Are you advocating peer review, Michael, or just quoting people for the sake of quoting other people?
I don't see much interest in peer review and objective reality here.
-
if you say Juhanis ccounting is incorrect i accept tht as true and that your experience is different than he said.
Um, I'm flattered by the faith you put in me. Out of all the things I say, how do you choose which ones you accept as true and which ones you don't?
-
rudi, i just take your word for it. simple as that.
-
Simple as that? No reason whatsoever? Just accept it because I say it?
Well, then I will say that about 27,56% of what Juhani said was true, 12.54% was false and the rest was his interpretation of the events, which couldn't be farther from the truth. There, I said it, the issue now is settled.
-
I don't get it. Are you advocating peer review, Michael, or just quoting people for the sake of quoting other people?
I don't see much interest in peer review and objective reality here.
No, I'm not advocating it, I'm demanding it.
The whole of Soma is set up on the basis of that demand.
Interest: if people don't show interest, that is their problem, or choice, but in general, I see a lot of interest in people attempting to validate through their own experience, the realisations from experience of others.
What we discuss in Soma, are typically ways of describing the spiritual experiences and realisations we have had. What we crave is for others to follow the experimental steps we have taken, and to come back with their own set of descriptions. Then we will weigh and challenge those descriptions.
What we have been waiting for with you Rudi, is to apply the techniques we have detailed ad nauseam in Soma. To follow the procedures outlined, and come back with your own realisations.
You have been doing this. Has it not occurred to you that is what you have been doing since you first met this odd bunch of people? This very thread is your latest submission of where you are up to in that process. This is your review to date. Many have been taking considerable effort to challenge you about the conclusions you have reached - that is how it works.
We are all peers in that we sit beneath the sword. We are all peers in that we seek objective truth instead of subjective projections. We are not all peers in the extent and range of experiences we have had, nor in the depths we have experienced, but we come to the table to share and dispute, offering equal rights to all members who come. The only thing we disdain is when a member throws in the towel and decides they no longer need to learn, explore, and experiment with life with sincerity. That others have engaged you means they still see you as sincerely engaged in this quest for truth.
-
There, I said it, the issue now is settled.
Except, we still don't know what happened. :)
-
You kind of make it sound like all the possible techniques can only be found in this forum? Anything that is not described here, doesn't count? What about life as a teacher, don't you think anyone can find spiritual lessons in life itself, not the books or writings of others, that are unique to this person and his/her situation? All the mundane stuff that we call the ordinary life, don't you think there are also precious exercises hidden there?
What we have been waiting for with you Rudi, is to apply the techniques we have detailed ad nauseam in Soma. To follow the procedures outlined, and come back with your own realisations.
-
Except, we still don't know what happened. :)
The details do not matter.
-
You kind of make it sound like all the possible techniques can only be found in this forum? Anything that is not described here, doesn't count?
No. You are mistaken in that.
What about life as a teacher, don't you think anyone can find spiritual lessons in life itself, not the books or writings of others, that are unique to this person and his/her situation?
No. Unfortunately, that's not possible.
All the mundane stuff that we call the ordinary life, don't you think there are also precious exercises hidden there?
Yes. But they require knowledge to interpret.
-
Well first thing is to accept that life around us, our environment can provide everything we need for our evolution. And no matter how small or irrelevant the deatils seem, there can be lessons there. Interpretation comes with time an experience. The current life situation, no matter how mundane it may seem, consists of everything we need. Spirit can also lead a person to inner silence, without him or her specially engaging in it regularly. There is a difference to doing something from our human initiative to Spirit guiding us to specific actions.
Yes. But they require knowledge to interpret.
-
I'll give an example. Today I attended a funeral, for the mother of a friend of ours.
As I sat in the room, I felt an intense personal experience. This was uniquely personal to me - my thoughts and visions, were all uniquely mine. No one else in that room was having that experience except me. All around me, everyone else was also having their own unique personal experience, and I could see it was different for everyone. So much passed through my feelings and thoughts, that I could never explain it, or even attempt to describe it effectively.
But I could also step outside my personal experience, and see what was happening in objective reality around me. What I saw was death touching everyone in the room, and through that, everyone had a window of awareness opened to the vast bedrock of the sadness of life. That seeing I can bring here and describe, and I'd wager every seer here has seen the same thing at a funeral. That seeing is open to validation by other seers.
And yet, another seer here could say, what she saw at funerals, was not everyone being touched by death, but everyone being touched by their own double. I would have to agree. Once that view was said to me, I also can say I saw the same thing. Then another seer may say what they saw was the coffin transformed into a vast chasm revealing a vista of infinity, and everyone present standing along the crest of the precipice, gazing out into that endlessness. I would then say yes, I saw the same, now you mention it - I can validate that. Then another seer might come forth and say he didn't see everyone being touched by their doubles, but everyone being touched by one double - the face of infinity itself. And I would also agree. Then another seer at the same funeral might say, what they saw was the spirit of the departed one, wandering around amongst the crowd. Yes, I'd say, I also saw that.
These things are verifiable by others, and yet for each seer, their personal experience would be unique and not shared. Nonetheless, that does not mean that there are not times when personal experiences are shared. Some events can be so powerful, and some people so powerful, that everyone present has exactly the same personal experience. It is said that Atisha in old Tibet had this power, to allow everyone to experience the same. Another example is the sorcerers of old, who united their personal visions to create another world into which they all transferred. It could be said that that process is precisely why we all see the same thing during our waking hours - we are sharing a non-unique personal experience which we call the 'world'.
-
Well first thing is to accept that life around us, our environment can provide everything we need for our evolution. And no matter how small or irrelevant the deatils seem, there can be lessons there. Interpretation comes with time an experience. The current life situation, no matter how mundane it may seem, consists of everything we need. Spirit can also lead a person to inner silence, without him or her specially engaging in it regularly. There is a difference to doing something from our human initiative to Spirit guiding us to specific actions.
I believe there is truth in what you are saying, if I am interpreting you correctly.
Are you saying that if you listen closely, and feel your world...if you are in the 'Now'. Then there is much to learn from the Spirits guidance alone?
If so I might agree, except that I do feel we need knowledge. The Spirit may provide a lesson, perhaps that lesson comes as an intuition, or an insight. Then you have to study that lesson.
Four kinds of knowledge, or ways in which we use knowledge in particular, not counting silent knowing...four as I calculate it anyway:
meta-cognitive: that is knowledge that comes from pondering about your own knowledge. Knowing what you know, and understanding that knowledge. This include knowing how to make important tactical and strategic decisions.
This also includes the kind of thinking where you look at what a teacher says, and ask why is this lesson is structured in that way. It is different from asking what is the root, is this true, how or why does this work, it is different from how does this relate to something else, from the creative thinking that asks what if etc. Though meta-cognitive thinking may include all these types of questions, it applies these questions to understanding that underlying structure that ties knowledge together. It comes to this understanding by knowing its own knowledge.
Pondering in general: Learn to ponder, and contemplate, so you can create information, and delve deeply into information, and knowledge. It isn't a good idea to keep taking in more info without bringing your own thoughts to understand it.
Reading, observing, listening: You take in ideas, and thoughts of others. There are many very useful tools to improve a persons ability to do this well. A great book is "How to Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler".
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Intelligent-Touchstone/dp/0671212095
Dialog, discussion, debate, and communication: what we do here. though there are many other format for how to engage in communication that are of great value.
-
I'll give an example. Today I attended a funeral, for the mother of a friend of ours.
As I sat in the room, I felt an intense personal experience. This was uniquely personal to me - my thoughts and visions, were all uniquely mine. No one else in that room was having that experience except me. All around me, everyone else was also having their own unique personal experience, and I could see it was different for everyone. So much passed through my feelings and thoughts, that I could never explain it, or even attempt to describe it effectively.
But I could also step outside my personal experience, and see what was happening in objective reality around me. What I saw was death touching everyone in the room, and through that, everyone had a window of awareness opened to the vast bedrock of the sadness of life. That seeing I can bring here and describe, and I'd wager every seer here has seen the same thing at a funeral. That seeing is open to validation by other seers.
And yet, another seer here could say, what she saw at funerals, was not everyone being touched by death, but everyone being touched by their own double. I would have to agree. Once that view was said to me, I also can say I saw the same thing. Then another seer may say what they saw was the coffin transformed into a vast chasm revealing a vista of infinity, and everyone present standing along the crest of the precipice, gazing out into that endlessness. I would then say yes, I saw the same, now you mention it - I can validate that. Then another seer might come forth and say he didn't see everyone being touched by their doubles, but everyone being touched by one double - the face of infinity itself. And I would also agree. Then another seer at the same funeral might say, what they saw was the spirit of the departed one, wandering around amongst the crowd. Yes, I'd say, I also saw that.
Thank you for sharing this. I had a similar experience when I went to the funeral for Jen's grandmother.
It felt as if a window into something deeply silent had opened for everyone who was there. A recognition of the inherent meaninglessness of life. Yet it seemed people did not want to fully face that silence, and so they talked to one another as much as possible. Or they were so immersed in their sorrow they couldn't see into the window.
At the same time I feel as if I am not adequately describing my own experience from that funeral. That I did not delve as deeply into it as I should have to be able to say in rigorous detail what I experienced.
-
Yes, my life and everything in it, is my playground, for the awareness to grow. I don't have to specifically design some tasks and excercises.
The problem is that there is no one past a certain point to give us a clearer understanding of what we are going through. No book or person can explain some things. Because no one has been there. It is uncharted land. Although theoretically everyone should be able to use their own inner knowing to find the truth. And also if we intend and look for answers in the world, Spirit may provide them, even through other people, but which doesn't have to mean that they are definetly on a high level of awareness.
Maybe it is possible for a person to not get lost on his own and make conclusions about his experience, even if in the future. I've had lots of help and I really don't know where I'd be without that. Sometimes a new knowing or understanding of something, comes sneakingly, barely graspable, but when I talk about it and get some cues, things become clearer faster. I have to say, it is quite amazing when someone says a few words and bang, it rings a bell...
I believe there is truth in what you are saying, if I am interpreting you correctly.
Are you saying that if you listen closely, and feel your world...if you are in the 'Now'. Then there is much to learn from the Spirits guidance alone?
If so I might agree, except that I do feel we need knowledge. The Spirit may provide a lesson, perhaps that lesson comes as an intuition, or an insight. Then you have to study that lesson.
Four kinds of knowledge, or ways in which we use knowledge in particular, not counting silent knowing...four as I calculate it anyway:
meta-cognitive: that is knowledge that comes from pondering about your own knowledge. Knowing what you know, and understanding that knowledge. This include knowing how to make important tactical and strategic decisions.
This also includes the kind of thinking where you look at what a teacher says, and ask why is this lesson is structured in that way. It is different from asking what is the root, is this true, how or why does this work, it is different from how does this relate to something else, from the creative thinking that asks what if etc. Though meta-cognitive thinking may include all these types of questions, it applies these questions to understanding that underlying structure that ties knowledge together. It comes to this understanding by knowing its own knowledge.
Pondering in general: Learn to ponder, and contemplate, so you can create information, and delve deeply into information, and knowledge. It isn't a good idea to keep taking in more info without bringing your own thoughts to understand it.
Reading, observing, listening: You take in ideas, and thoughts of others. There are many very useful tools to improve a persons ability to do this well. A great book is "How to Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler".
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Intelligent-Touchstone/dp/0671212095
Dialog, discussion, debate, and communication: what we do here. though there are many other format for how to engage in communication that are of great value.
-
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I just wondered, how long would it take before anyone threw in Carl Sagan.
-
Simple as that? No reason whatsoever? Just accept it because I say it?
If you where a warrior in the lineage of Carlos Castaneda, I would hold anything as you say as the truth.
Simple as that, always tell the truth. After all Castaneda had some reasons to tell the truth, he got haunted for making constructs. But that is another story.
-
What about life as a teacher,
To freely quote Kris Raphael:
Life is often a quite rude teacher.
Meaning it is better to be a step before Life as a Teacher.
-
I just wondered, how long would it take before anyone threw in Carl Sagan.
Yep lol. That was mainly for rudi to explain that he can find spirituality in science. It does not have to be missing for him if he pursues science as his path. :)