one of my favorite books. On Jan 18, 11:47 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
