I do not fully comprehend why, in this matter pertaining to choice and
belief, but do find the following article relevant :
" When Greek philosopher Pythagoras reached Egypt to enter a school
– a secret esoteric school of mysticism – he was refused entry. And
Pythagoras was one of the best minds ever produced. He could not
understand it. He applied again and again, but was told that unless he
goes through a particular training of fasting and breathing he cannot
be allowed entry.
Pythagoras is reported to have said: ‘‘I have come for knowledge,
not for any sort of discipline.’’ But the school authorities said:
‘‘We cannot give you knowledge unless you are different. And really,
we are not interested in knowledge at all; we are interested in actual
experience. No knowledge is knowledge unless it is lived and
experienced. So you will have to go on a 40-day fast, continuously
breathing in a certain manner, with a certain awareness on certain
points.’’
There was no other way, so Pythagoras had to pass through this
training. After 40 days of fasting and breathing, aware and attentive,
he was allowed to enter the school. Pythagoras reportedly said: ‘‘You
are not allowing Pythagoras in. I am a different man; I am reborn. You
were right and I was wrong, because then, my whole standpoint was
intellectual. Through this purification, my centre of being has
changed. From the intellect it has come down to the heart. Now I can
feel things. Before this training I could only understand through the
intellect, through the head. Now I can feel. Now truth is not a
concept to me, but life. It is not going to be a philosophy, but
rather, an experience – existential.’’
What was that training he went through? The technique was as
follows: Attention between eyebrows, let mind be before thought. Let
form fill with breath essence to the top of the head and there, shower
as light.
Pythagoras went with this technique to Greece, and really, he
became the fountainhead, the source of all mysticism in the West.
This technique is among the deep methods. Try to understand it.
Modern physiology says that between the two eyebrows is the gland that
is the most mysterious part of the body. This gland, called the pineal
gland, is the third eye to Tibetans. It is the Shivnetra, the eye of
the Shiva, of tantra. Between the two eyes there exists a third eye,
but it is nonfunctioning. You have to do something to open it.
Otherwise, it remains closed.
Close your eyes and focus both eyes on space in the middle of your
eyebrows. Give total attention to it. This is one of the simplest
methods of being attentive. You cannot be attentive to any other part
of the body so easily. This gland absorbs attention like anything. If
you give attention to it, both your eyes become hypnotised with the
third eye. They become fixed; they cannot move. The third eye forces
attention. It is magnetic. Your attention is brought to it forcibly.
It is absorbed.
It is said in ancient tantra scriptures that for the third eye,
attention is food. And once you feel that the gland itself is
magnetically pulling your attention, it is not so difficult. For the
first time you will see thoughts running before you. You will become
the witness. It is just like a film screen: thoughts are running and
you are a witness.
Excerpted from The Book of Secrets. Courtesy: Osho International
Foundation. www.osho.com "
We can experience the knowledge we come to believe in.
On Jan 19, 7:24 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've always wondered about converts Lee, in the 'scientist dissecting
> their heads' kinda way. The worst tend to be ultra-rightists who used
> to be lefties, but the fervour of all converts seems much the same
> (you are an excellent exception, but before taking praise on board,
> remember that only makes you are more interesting dissection
> specimen). Sue and I will never vote Labour again, but fear not - we
> look so bad in lederhosen we're going for the Liberals or Greens. I'd
> prefer to vote for a party like those German guys who shout
> 'Applejuice' at Nazis. My rather wandering point is that people
> change their world-views pretty totally sometimes, both into and out
> of religion, as often into agnosticism as between faiths of
> denominations. It's also pretty clear now that we do have a godspot
> in the brain and this varies in impact between us. Many very
> brilliant people are also subject to delusions that seem to come from
> the same place (on their reports).
> The usual stuff about believing in god seems forced on most people by
> 'socially approved epistemic authority'. They use all kinds of
> tricks, a bit like the shits trying to bully my grandson into giving
> up his Muslim friends at the moment. I choose not to believe in any
> god that any group believes in as they are all tarnished one way or
> another, but I suspect many of us are more concerned with something
> very different than god in the sense 'he' is normally dealt out to us.
>
> Deep philosophy can't really find the ground on which there is a
> science versus religion argument that is remotely rational - one does
> not equate out the other unless one simply follows dogma rather than
> 'truth'. Dawkins v the Archbishop of Canterbury is really promoted by
> the literary equivalents of Frank Warren. One can be spiritual
> without god, and a combination of evolution and modern work on self-
> organisation suggests we are not on a wholly determined path. One can
> read Kant, but then discover Prichard saying the opposite: ‘Knowledge
> is sui generis and therefore a ‘theory’ of knowledge is impossible.
> Knowledge is knowledge, and any attempt to state it is terms of
> something else must end in describing something which is not
> knowledge’. More modern again, we find that we can only do our best
> with what is undecidable - god questions surely being that.
> It seems fit for me to broadly reject belief in god and that this view
> can be particular to me as what might make you be a seeker Lee (and so
> on). Only irrationality would make this difference important. What
> one swallows in faith though is often much more than the innocence of
> truth-seeking.
>
> On 18 Jan, 23:53, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "do we really choose to have faith in God's existence", you wonder.
> > You suspect not.
>
> > One could choose to believe God exists, just as one could choose to
> > believe the earth orbits the sun. Billions have done both. Speaking
> > for myself, I do not know the earth orbits the sun, because I have not
> > taken the time to conduct the necessary experiments. I have no doubt
> > it does because I trust that the scientists have done their work well.
> > But for myself it is not properly called "knowledge" that the earth
> > moves. Rather, I have chosen to trust the scientists on this point.
>
> > Now one could do the same thing with God: believe God is, on the trust
> > in other credible people. And that is good enough for children. But it
> > is really only the faith of parents and teachers alive in the
> > children.
>
> > But eventually one grows up, works through the proofs of God, and that
> > knowledge is perfected. That God exists exists is /not/ an article of
> > faith for those who can follow the proofs, just as "the earth orbits
> > the sun" is /not/ an article of faith for those who have conducted the
> > relevant experiments. Faced with a truth that can be known by reason
> > or faith, a person has an option to convert it from an article of
> > faith to a conclusion of reason.
>
> > Even so, there is a world of difference between "I believe X" and "I
> > believe in X". The man for whom God's existence is not an article of
> > faith but a conclusion of reason, has only begun. He knows God is
> > (because he followed the proofs), and he knows it with the certainty
> > he knows two is a prime number, and with far greater certainty than
> > the scientist knows earth orbits the sun (which is, after all, an
> > empirical conclusion, and subject to correction by future facts). He
> > knows God is. But does he believe in God?
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:32 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > So I have been away for a week(damn me am the only IT bod in the world
> > > without Internet access at home,this is NOT the question) and when I
> > > come back i see all sorts of rows and arguments and I guess what can
> > > only be described as 'bad bood'
>
> > > Those of you who know me well enough by now know that one of my things
> > > is the concept of 'free will' and it is something along these lines
> > > that I want to ask you about.
>
> > > Choice of belifes. I was asked elswhere a while back on some Sikh
> > > forum or other why I choose to belive that the entity we know as God
> > > exists. After thinking about it for a while I realised that I
> > > couldn't really answer this question in any way other then:
>
> > > 'Good question Agnostic Ji.
>
> > > Do we really choose to have faith in God's existance though? Can we
> > > literaly choose what we wish to belive or not?
> > > Lets try it, please try to choose to belive that God exists and let us
> > > know what happens.
> > > I suspect that I can no more choose not to belive in God than I have
> > > chossen the opposite.'
>
> > > Am I right? Rather like one's sexual preferance, is it true that one
> > > can choose to belive in God or not?
>
> > > Ian I'm look at you my friend.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
