Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > However we're getting a bit offtrack here and most yogis will tell you > that mantras on the aural level have the same effect at the mental > level > but are even more powerful there. Again most of them who have given > it > much thought in terms of sound physics would say it is resonance and > how > the nervous system resonates with the mantra. And that is why > different > mantras have different effects. If there are people here who don't > experience that well maybe later Well another important concept is the idea of rhythmic entrainment, that certain frequencies cause a locked entrainment in other objects (e.g. "sympathetic vibration"). If this can happen in physical objects, why not the brain, a physical object connected to both our ears and our thoughts? I think it would be fairly easy to show how different musical modes affect people differently by doing EEG studies of people listening to different musics in differing modes. Clearly this was something recognized long ago in the west, as I believe the Roman Catholic Church even forbade certain modes. Some were considered sinister or diabolical. I'm sure, had it been heard by church officials, the minor pentatonic with a flatted 5th (the Blues scale) would have surely been deemed subjectively and objectively "demonic". Certain modes, like Phrygian IIRC, were believed to make people go insane. This same principle is also behind the idea of blues and Rock & Roll being "the devil's music". It's sinistroversus, left-turning, and probably hits sympathetic neural receptors in the right brain. Very scary when you spent a lifetime locked into the the left brain.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:41 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi New Morn: On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote: I am still not sure we are connecting here. First, per ground rules, as you know, I hope, I am not satirizing you. I am taking some ideas that, to me, don't seem "robust" -- and at some distinctions that are not necessary, IMO. I use the technique, of moving the ideas to more extreme applications to see if they hold up (for me) and if the more extreme application is "funny" (to me), it tend the feel the underlying idea needs more work. Thus, while I was having some fun, it was not ridicule. It was taking some ideas out for a spin to see how they take sharp corners. And maybe I have gotten off on some sort detour, or into some sort of satiric loop where I am missing some key points. I don't know. All of this is an exploration for me (as with many of my posts) though the path I take may seem odd and strange to others -- including myself some days hence. For one thing, you appeared, to me, to be using a number of loaded words. Which became the target of my half-wit brain. sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity to me, loaded words: stultifies, taboo, even encumbered. To me, what you are pointing out is that some knowledge is inside the head, and some is outside the head. No, I'm pointing out several taboos present in the view of modern science. Yes, science is a wonderful thing Martha, but it ain't perfect either. It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to arise. First, I don't accept the term science applied to the subjective realm Then you probably should have said that from the beginning and then there only would have been one question to discuss. IF you are then redefining science to fit this inner realm of inquiry. I think modern science looks at a huge amount if inside the head stuff. In modern "scientific" ways. Other investigators look at internal stuff in ways outside of modern science. That doesn't a priori make one better than the other. But it doesn't make the other means of investigation "science". I have observed inner practices and applied them and I feel once certain criteria are met, inner exploration can lead to subjective science. I base this on the fact that I merely: -followed a procedure others have, which was said to work -got the same results as described. Given the good "repeatability", I would hypothesize that anyone could repeat them. in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism Another loaded word -- that does not bring much meaning, IMO. But more of an emotional response. To me, it actually has a lot of meaning--there's nothing funny about it--it points out a valid trend in the idolization of theories, and attachment to these theories. Before you claim "idolization" is a scary word, I am using "idol" here in the same sense as Francis Bacon: a false absolute resulting from reification, causing us to grasp at this absolute entity, when in fact, there is none. if you feel science is fundamentalist -- first define fundamentalist -- because we may be taking different things -- then point out examples where the majority of science -- not a few isolated cases are fundamentalist. Per my definitions if f. and my view of science and its processes as I am aware if it, to me this juxtaposition of words science and fundamentalism is looney. Thus the satire of it. If you can make the aboe case, I am open to listening. Scientific fundamentalism, not altogether unlike religious fundamentalism is a property of scientism, the typical thoughts of scientists via excessive belief in scientific knowledge and techniques. Instead of seeing the world like the religionists with history as the guiding presence of god, so too the adherents of scientism see history as an unswerving march towards Truth, where previous errors are replaced with facts. In both cases certain biases are concealed under these ideas. came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. That there is a rift between various religious factions on the role of personal experience vs grace and salvation for outside does not "follow" or seem to apply to science which certainly does not reject inside the head experience -- huge amount of research his indeed done in that. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Vyaasa's comment goes like this:
>
> shraddhaa cetasaH saMprasaadaH | saa hi jananiiva kalyaaNii yoginaM
> paati |
>
> One possible "translation" could be:
>
> Faith is saMprasaada[1] of mind (cetasaH) | It protects (paati[3])
> a yogii (yoginam) like (iva) a kalyaaNii[2] mother (jananii).
>
> 1. samprasAda m. perfect quiet (esp. mental repose during deep sleep)
> S3Br. Lalit. ; favour , grace Uttarar. ; serenity Bhat2t2. (v.l.) ;
> (in Veda7nta) the soul during deep sleep ChUp. MBh. &c. ; trust ,
> confidence W.
>
T'might be kewl to add that instead of 'SAM-prasaada', Bhoja uses
the "simpler" word 'prasaada':
tatra shraddhaa yogaviSaye cetasaH prasaadaH
Suggestion for "translation":
there (tatra: in that suutra?) faith (shraddhaa) [is] with regard
(viSaye[1]) to yoga (yoga-[viSaye]) prasaada[2] of mind (cetasaH)
1. viSaya m. (ifc. f. %{A} ; prob. either fr 1. %{viS} , `" to act "'
, or fr. %{vi} + %{si} , `" to extend "' cf. Pa1n2. 8-3 , 70 Sch.)
sphere (of influence or activity) , dominion , kingdom , territory ,
region , district , country , abode (pl. = lands , possessions) Mn.
MBh. &c. ; scope , compass , horizon , range , reach (of eyes , ears ,
mind &c.) S3a1n3khS3r. MBh. &c. ; period or duration (of life)
Pan5cat. ; special sphere or department , peculiar province or tield
of action , peculiar element , concern (ifc. = `" concerned with ,
belonging to , intently engaged on "' ; %{viSaye} , with gen. or
ifc. = `" in the sphere of , with regard or reference to "' ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , `" with regard to this object "')
2. prasAda m. (ifc. f. %{A}) clearness , brightness , pellucidnees ,
purity (cf. %{ambu-p-}) , UP. Ka1lid. &c. (Nom. P. %{-sAdati} , to be
clear or bright. S3atr.) [697,1] ; clearness of style , perspicuity
Prata1p. Ka1vya7d. Sa1h. ; brightness (of the face) Ragh. ;
calmness , tranquillity , absence of excitement Kat2hUp. Sus3r.
Yogas[uutra]***.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am aware of the math and physics behind music. But when > I was thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony > and melody and other aspects of composition. Sure, but math and physics are involved in these. It takes engineering to build a piano > but we would say that studying piano involves engineering > would we? Bad analogy. (And some piano builders/designers are also pianists. Many piano tuners are pianists.) > I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot > of time working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, > even though as you mention it lies as a core understanding of > all string instruments. Depends on who it is. It's one of the aspects of music theory. Some musicians get into the science of it. > Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are > highly influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred > to as a science. There are aspects to it that are found across cultures. As I say, there's a big area of overlap between music as art and music as science. > But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. > I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study > route.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: > I am aware of the math and physics behind music. But when I was > thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and > other aspects of composition. It takes engineering to build a piano > but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we? > > I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time > working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you > mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. > Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly > influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science. > Counterpoint is a good example of something that can get somewhat mathematical. You're working with tension and release of it over a pattern of notes. Yes some musicians would hate for it to be referred to as a science but when I was in music school there were two groups: the performers and the composers. The former often received tutoring from folks like me (the latter) to help them get through their theory courses. I always enjoyed theory from my first music lesson when I was 8. So I kinda understand why performers don't often "get it." > But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. > I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route. > > And ask a few others. Another professor at the university I attended was William O. Smith who some may remember here as Dave Brubeck's clarinetist on his early stuff. BTW, Bill was also a TM'er and on some of the residence courses I attended. I did some experimental music with him while I was at the U. However we're getting a bit offtrack here and most yogis will tell you that mantras on the aural level have the same effect at the mental level but are even more powerful there. Again most of them who have given it much thought in terms of sound physics would say it is resonance and how the nervous system resonates with the mantra. And that is why different mantras have different effects. If there are people here who don't experience that well maybe later
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi New Morn: > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote: I am still not sure we are connecting here. First, per ground rules, as you know, I hope, I am not satirizing you. I am taking some ideas that, to me, don't seem "robust" -- and at some distinctions that are not necessary, IMO. I use the technique, of moving the ideas to more extreme applications to see if they hold up (for me) and if the more extreme application is "funny" (to me), it tend the feel the underlying idea needs more work. Thus, while I was having some fun, it was not ridicule. It was taking some ideas out for a spin to see how they take sharp corners. And maybe I have gotten off on some sort detour, or into some sort of satiric loop where I am missing some key points. I don't know. All of this is an exploration for me (as with many of my posts) though the path I take may seem odd and strange to others -- including myself some days hence. For one thing, you appeared, to me, to be using a number of loaded words. Which became the target of my half-wit brain. sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a > >> deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less > >> encumbered > >> by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The > >> taboo of subjectivity to me, loaded words: stultifies, taboo, even encumbered. To me, what you are pointing out is that some knowledge is inside the head, and some is outside the head. > It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of > subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective > science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to > arise. First, I don't accept the term science applied to the subjective realm IF you are then redefining science to fit this inner realm of inquiry. I think modern science looks at a huge amount if inside the head stuff. In modern "scientific" ways. Other investigators look at internal stuff in ways outside of modern science. That doesn't a priori make one better than the other. But it doesn't make the other means of investigation "science". > >> in the west has a lot to do with the way the > >> scientific fundamentalism Another loaded word -- that does not bring much meaning, IMO. But more of an emotional response. if you feel science is fundamentalist -- first define fundamentalist -- because we may be taking different things -- then point out examples where the majority of science -- not a few isolated cases are fundamentalist. Per my definitions if f. and my view of science and its processes as I am aware if it, to me this juxtaposition of words science and fundamentalism is looney. Thus the satire of it. If you can make the aboe case, I am open to listening. > >> came about but it is also a shared element > >> with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on > >> subjectivity. That there is a rift between various religious factions on the role of personal experience vs grace and salvation for outside does not "follow" or seem to apply to science which certainly does not reject inside the head experience -- huge amount of research his indeed done in that. > > I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective > > validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they > > seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn > > Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. > > Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- > subjective or materialistic Again, a false dicchotomy, and loaded words, IMO. materialism has several meanings, a largly used one, which hangs over all uses of the word, is a negative thing: crass, gross, superficial, shallow. I hardly view science as that. --if we know the instrumentation we use is > reliable. I would not assume "just because you said so" that your > subjective "instrument" was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since > refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired > trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of > consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's "outer" brother, > it too requires training and established expertise. OK. I have no problem that there are inside the head disciplines that are able to get rid of (many) unreliable factors. As does science. But I don't by, right off the shelf, any claim that some inside the head tradition has developed reliable instruments unless they run the gaunlet of testing for unreliability that science (and the philosophy of knowledge) have uncovered -- including, but not limited to cognitive biases, logical fallacies, fluke and random events seen as true and stable patterns, correlation seen as causation, etc. As I said, I like what HHD.Lama said, and is doing, to reject tibetian b. dogma that doesn't stand up to the gauntle
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > Richard M wrote: >> >> (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was >> alleged >> that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed >> with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the >> idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations >> seems fishy to me) >> > This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often > thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver > processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you > could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. > And > then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the > brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning > regardless. This also brings up the idea that if you can reach the source of consciousness through some internal process, can you separate consciousness from the body? And if yes, does that "prove" that consciousness is independent of matter and only interdependent with matter (i.e. the brain/nervous system)?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Hi New Morn: On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew. When will they get a clue! It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to arise. in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance. Pray on dude. came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- subjective or materialistic--if we know the instrumentation we use is reliable. I would not assume "just because you said so" that your subjective "instrument" was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's "outer" brother, it too requires training and established expertise. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute truth. Again, not my point. The point was not that science established indefensible, unfalsifiable absolute truths, but that public, materialistic truths are all we can know by science and inner truths are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, in fact that they are taboo. The reason science leans towards the absolute is because it's logical outcome, the defining of all of nature by scientific laws, could eventually mean that we could understand, scientifically, how everything works. This increasing knowledge of the physical world will therefore be the solution to all of man's problems. The idea of modern science as a search for absolutes actually is a prominent theme in Galileo and Newton and, as you point out, was replaced as new theories came about and were found to be more realistic ideas. But once established, such laws can not only be taken as absolute laws (e.g., gravitation, "absolute" zero, etc.) it's also not unusual for scientific materialists to hold old onto their beliefs with the similar tenacity of religious fundamentalists. So therein lies the similarity. one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the absolute word of god. I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the ONE Truth) Again, you miss the point. The point is that just as a scientific paper, that we must take on faith can be replicated, can move beyond mere faith by actually going through the steps to replicate and prove to our actual senses or extended senses (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) the validity of that paper; in an internal science we can also with a steady and refined instrument develop insights which can be replicated by following the same procedures or techniques by others. The main split here is that one is inherently public (I can drop a bowling ball and a bag of feathers off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and invite all my friends to see it with their external senses); and another is, by nature, private. What I'm quietly thinking is generally known to me and not others. Just because it can generally not be known to others does not mean that it cannot be a valid medium for scientific inquiry. The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a god
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > someone wrote:
> > > > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your
> > > > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share
> > > > > > your faith.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga"
> > > > > associated with it is "faith based."
> > >
> > > I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of
> > > "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word
> > > "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates
> > > the environment of anything that has the word "yoga"
> > > associated with it that I don't think there can
> > > *exist* any such thing as "yogic science."
> > >
> >
> > According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
> > "heart-putting" = faith).
> >
>
> Intersting though. THe word "faith" in the Christan Bible translates
two words:
> a Hebrew word coming from "right-handed" that implies "strength [in
God]"
> and a Greek word that implies "intuitive knowledge."
>
> Neither means simply "belief without proof" which is how the word
"faith"
> appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the
Sanskrit
> word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at
> all like the English word for "belief without proof," even though
everyone
> appears to use it that way (including you, above).
>
>
> Lawson
>
Vyaasa's comment goes like this:
shraddhaa cetasaH saMprasaadaH | saa hi jananiiva kalyaaNii yoginaM
paati |
One possible "translation" could be:
Faith is saMprasaada[1] of mind (cetasaH) | It protects (paati[3])
a yogii (yoginam) like (iva) a kalyaaNii[2] mother (jananii).
1. samprasAda m. perfect quiet (esp. mental repose during deep sleep)
S3Br. Lalit. ; favour , grace Uttarar. ; serenity Bhat2t2. (v.l.) ;
(in Veda7nta) the soul during deep sleep ChUp. MBh. &c. ; trust ,
confidence W.
2. kalyANa mf(%{I4})n. (g. %{bahv-Adi}) beautiful , agreeable RV.
S3Br. &c. ; illustrious , noble , generous ; excellent , virtuous ,
good (%{kalyANa} voc. `" good sir "' ; %{kalyANi} , `" good lady "') ;
beneficial , salutary , auspicious ; happy , prosperous , fortunate ,
lucky , well , right RV. i , 31 , 9 ; iii , 53 , 6 TS. AV. S3Br. Nir.
ii , 3 MBh. R.
3. pA 3 cl. 2. P. (Dha1t. xxiv , 48) %{pA4ti} (Impv. %{pAhi4} ; pr.
p. P. %{pA4t} A1. %{pAna4} RV. ; pf. %{papau} Gr. ; aor. %{apAsIt}
Ra1jat. Subj. %{pAsati} RV. ; fut. %{pAsyati} , %{pAtA} Gr. ; Prec.
%{pAyAt} Pa1n2. 6-4 , 68 Sch. ; inf. %{pAtum} MBh.) , to watch , keep
, preserve ; to protect from , defend against (abl.) RV. &c. &c. ; to
protect (a country) i.e. rule , govern Ra1jat. ; to observe , notice ,
attend to , follow RV. AitBr.: Caus. %{pAlayati} see %{pAl}: Desid.
%{pIpAsati} Gr.:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> > Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > > method. > > Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- > and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard > Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for > applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto > scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not > applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their > most basic forms? > > I am not saying its all science. There is "art". But I just don't see > a huge chasm between the two. I agree with your use of feedback mechanisms in real life. I'm just saying that some subjects go though too much reductionism when you try to fit them into the methods of hard science and that includes some areas of the soft sciences. So trying to claim that a philosophy of life is more scientific than another seems like a misuse of the term. For example if you tried to claim that it was scientifically proven that groups of people sitting around thinking meaningless sounds created world peace. That claim would be silly and no educated person would take it seriously...right? It might be a delightful belief, but it wouldn't be scientific even with a bunch of "sciency" sounding studies claiming to prove it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > [inversely quoting you]] > >I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. > > Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That > scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of > life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a > the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. > > And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at > least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more. > At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that > road.) > > I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to > basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques > to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running > further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning > more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better > dates, being telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is > full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific > methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating > plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to > know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke, > etc. > > I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative > years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of > phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or > knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to > sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. > > On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade, > I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about > Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to > solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I > want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to > do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d > object from scratch an ingenuity). I couldn't get enough of it. > > That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific > methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and > motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others > teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real > problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me. > After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I > disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. > > (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step > in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every > student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring > teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can > find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year > old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , "why?" (more like > why?!??!!!) > > > Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > > method. > > Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- > and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard > Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for > applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto > scientific method -- and some onto hard scienc
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
I am aware of the math and physics behind music. But when I was thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and other aspects of composition. It takes engineering to build a piano but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we? I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science. But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a > > > science and the application of it is an art. That's what > > > I was pointing out. > > > > I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and > > can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. > > No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is > > always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't > > mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang > > out with music professors so you may be right. > > He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for > one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's > acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches > is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology, > which has at least some hard-science aspects. > > You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or > the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in > the middle. > > Try searching for "physics of music." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [inversely quoting you]] >I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more. At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that road.) I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better dates, being telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke, etc. I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade, I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d object from scratch an ingenuity). I couldn't get enough of it. That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me. After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , "why?" (more like why?!??!!!) > Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > method. Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their most basic forms? I am not saying its all science. There is "art". But I just don't see a huge chasm between the two.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard M wrote: > > > > (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged > > that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed > > with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the > > idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations > > seems fishy to me) > > > This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often > thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver > processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you > could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. And > then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the > brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning > regardless. > John Hagelin's current theory is that the brain is the ordinary matter interface of some larger entity composed of dark matter. /shrug Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Richard M wrote: > > (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged > that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed > with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the > idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations > seems fishy to me) > This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. And then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning regardless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a > > science and the application of it is an art. That's what > > I was pointing out. > > I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and > can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. > No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is > always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't > mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang > out with music professors so you may be right. He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology, which has at least some hard-science aspects. You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in the middle. Try searching for "physics of music."
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > > > > someone wrote: > > > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your > > > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science. > > > > > > > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share > > > > > your faith. > > > > > > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" > > > > associated with it is "faith based." > > > > I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of > > "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word > > "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates > > the environment of anything that has the word "yoga" > > associated with it that I don't think there can > > *exist* any such thing as "yogic science." > > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: > "heart-putting" = faith). > Intersting though. THe word "faith" in the Christan Bible translates two words: a Hebrew word coming from "right-handed" that implies "strength [in God]" and a Greek word that implies "intuitive knowledge." Neither means simply "belief without proof" which is how the word "faith" appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the Sanskrit word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at all like the English word for "belief without proof," even though everyone appears to use it that way (including you, above). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > >but how it feels to > > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > > I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never > mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD > alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, > and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory > functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such > has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really > happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, > and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts > jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently > kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. > Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which > causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he > really kicks out the jams when you play it. > Ok, ok, ok! On the other hand, Here are some examples of folks who are "normal" but have been seriously short-changed in the grey matter department. I'm not sure these examples live happily with the reductionist idea "It's the brain, stupid!", do they? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926645.700-how-we-can-learn-from-children-with-half-a-brain.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations seems fishy to me) > > > > > > > > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs > > > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so > > > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and > responded > > > with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply > > these > > > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a > > > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. > > > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > > that do we? > > > > > > > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde > > > inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon > > > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and > > > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably > anyone > > > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with > > the > > > next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just > sounds > > > lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in > > your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an > > > interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals > > of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting > > > second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians > > including > the great masters have used down through the centuries. > > > > This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a > > commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. > > Rational processes are part of the arts. > > > > > > > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with > > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > > better communication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the > application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang out with music professors so you may be right. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > > method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. > > > I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for > scientific inquiry. And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, > it's been going on for centuries. But "whatever rocks your boat." :D > > > >> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works > >> including yours. Really good music producers will look for that > >> > > element > > > >> when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of > >> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background > >> > > was > > > >> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them > >> into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical > >> sciences and psychology. > >> > > > > I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products > > of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what > > exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the > > knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and > > physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes > > get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to > > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > > > You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a > book about it called "All You Need Is Ears." :D > > Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the > application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. > > > > > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > > that do we? > > > I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany > Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both > psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. > > > > > >> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with > >> > > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > > better communication. > > > As I already pointed out. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: > Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. > I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for scientific inquiry. And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, it's been going on for centuries. But "whatever rocks your boat." :D > >> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works >> including yours. Really good music producers will look for that >> > element > >> when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of >> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background >> > was > >> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them >> into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical >> sciences and psychology. >> > > I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products > of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what > exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the > knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and > physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes > get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a book about it called "All You Need Is Ears." :D Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. > > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > that do we? > I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. > > >> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with >> > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > better communication. > As I already pointed out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > >but how it feels to > > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > > I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never > mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD > alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, > and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory > functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such > has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really > happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, > and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts > jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently > kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. > Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which > causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he > really kicks out the jams when you play it. Science can predict the brain effect side but not the artistic preference part. Some people like to trip and listen to death metal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs > > > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so > > > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and > responded > > > with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply > > these > > > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a > > > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. > > > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > > that do we? > > > > > > > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde > > > inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon > > > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and > > > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably > anyone > > > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with > > the > > > next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just > sounds > > > lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in > > your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an > > > interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals > > of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting > > > second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians > > including > the great masters have used down through the centuries. > > > > This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a > > commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. > > Rational processes are part of the arts. > > > > > > > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with > > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > > better communication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >but how it feels to > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he really kicks out the jams when you play it. > > > > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs > > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so > > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded > > with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply > these > > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a > > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > that do we? > > > > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde > > inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon > > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and > > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone > > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with > the > > next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds > > lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in > your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an > > interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals > of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting > > second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians > including > the great masters have used down through the centuries. > > This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a > commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. > Rational processes are part of the arts. > > > > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > better communication. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > No, I'm not claiming that at all. All I'm claiming is that > different mantras have different effects and it is due to the > resonance of the sound which also works at the mental level. > That is not dogma as it can be observed at the audible level. > > They are different in what parts of the body are involved. A > thought is not a sound vibration of air molecules hitting the > ear drum. It may be an electrical or chemical event in the > brain, but it is not the same thing as an external sound > vibration. There may not be as much difference as you think. Unless we set up specialized instruments to measure the sound, the only way we know there's an "external sound vibration" is by the electrical/chemical event it produces in the brain when it hits the eardrum. It would be interesting to do a study to see whether thinking the mantra activates the hearing area of the brain. There have been studies (not related to meditation) showing that when we imagine a sound or sight, maybe touch/smell/taste as well, the same areas of the brain light up under MRI as when we actually hear or see etc. something external. And even when we set up instruments to measure sound vibrations, the measurements by themselves tell us nothing about whether the sound is pleasant or unpleasant, consonant or dissonant, major or minor. Those qualities are the province of the brain, not the measuring instruments. Speaking of a fingernail on a blackboard, for many people just *mentioning* it is enough to make them wince, because the words evoke the memory of what it sounds like. That's why the analogy is so effective in the TM intro lecture. People "hear" the sound in their mind's ear the same way they "hear" the mantra. You sure wouldn't want to use the fingernail sound as if it were a mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual > sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a > deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered > by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The > taboo of subjectivity I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew. When will they get a clue! > in the west has a lot to do with the way the > scientific fundamentalism You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance. > came about but it is also a shared element > with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on > subjectivity. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. > Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute truth. > one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the > absolute word of god. I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the ONE Truth) > The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek > and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a > god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created > humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis > for scientific materialism. YOU are so right on today! First you are right, if jews and goat-slamming greeks came up with it, its really suspect. And I took some undergraduate science, and hung out with some science grad students, and they told me the secret -- science is really all based on a core belief that gods created the universe. Its like in the first chapter of ALL science texts. > > This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, I know -- and I am too lame to understand it, so I am so glad you are giving me the distilled version. And plus, being your subjective truth, that makes it even more golden. >as one has to > explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along > with our current paradigms. I Know! can't them knucklehead scientists see that they are locked into a paradigm.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
snip > > > Because people aren't satisfied to take it on "faith." They want to > know how it works. They want a concrete idea of how it works. It's > human nature. When you start dissecting it then it becomes a "science." Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > > Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works > including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element > when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of > music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was > able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them > into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical > sciences and psychology. I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded > with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde > inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the > next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds > lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an > interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting > second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including > the great masters have used down through the centuries. This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. Rational processes are part of the arts. > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: >> Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional >> science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. >> It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In >> > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > spiritual practices. > > Because people aren't satisfied to take it on "faith." They want to know how it works. They want a concrete idea of how it works. It's human nature. When you start dissecting it then it becomes a "science." > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical sciences and psychology. I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or > > possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating > > realm for science to explore. > > > > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove" > > and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. > > > > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is > > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.) > > > Nice naildown New. And then it can join the soft sciences with the > appropriate epistemological humility. There will be some hard science > qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the > connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of > working theory. Well, at least it will remain on the same level of predictive power and unraveling of causal factors as any of the behavioral and social sciences. But I heard tell them there white coat boys have made some pr'gress in the last 100 years or so with white mice, mazes and all. But last I heard much about that was at my 'nivrsity -- and those pocket protector type prof'sors seemed like a bunch of eggheads, so you are prob'ly right, their so called res'rch may not 'mount to much of nuthin'. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather > unification. > > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > > > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > > > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > > > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > > > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > > > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > > > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > > > spiritual practices. > > > > > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > > > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > > > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > > > > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > > > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > > > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > > > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > > > claims of "science." > > > > > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > > > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > > > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > > > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > > > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > > > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > > > feel something we personally value. > > > > > > > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or > > possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating > > realm for science to explore. > > > > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove" > > and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. > > > > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is > > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, > > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, > > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups > > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately > > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of > > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science > > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at > > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone > > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female > > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- > LOTS> more field work ... > > No, this is how Boy Band managers work. My job is to play the music > that rocks my world and find the people who agree. If you try to play > for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act. > > "Hey its really great to be heeerrre!" > > That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore > the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock > cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death > Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not! Well, laudibly you are a musical purist. However, I am glad that you have found a theory -- with extraordinary predictive power, via experimentation, the causal factor to make womens's clothes levitate -- with the music of Getz and Gilberto.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the absolute word of god. The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis for scientific materialism. This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, as one has to explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along with our current paradigms. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of "science." Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or > possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating > realm for science to explore. > > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove" > and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. > > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.) Nice naildown New. And then it can join the soft sciences with the appropriate epistemological humility. There will be some hard science qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of working theory. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > > spiritual practices. > > > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > > claims of "science." > > > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > > feel something we personally value. > > > > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or > possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating > realm for science to explore. > > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove" > and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. > > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > spiritual practices. > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > claims of "science." > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > feel something we personally value. > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove" and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS> more field work ... No, this is how Boy Band managers work. My job is to play the music that rocks my world and find the people who agree. If you try to play for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act. "Hey its really great to be heeerrre!" That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > > spiritual practices. > > > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS > more field work ... > > > > > > > > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > > claims of "science." > > > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > > feel something we personally value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or > > > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa > [shrad-dhaa]: > > > > "heart-putting" = faith). > > > > > > > > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior > to". > > > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it > > > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith > and > > > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe > > > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely > > > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > spiritual practices. > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS more field work ... > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > claims of "science." > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > feel something we personally value. > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or > > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: > > > "heart-putting" = faith). > > > > > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to". > > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it > > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and > > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe > > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely > > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just > > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is > > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely > > means you've been duped. > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. > > > > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on > > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) > > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, > > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, > > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > spiritual practices. The mantra is like a Jackson Pollack painting -- devoid of meaning. it allows you to drop, like dropping a can of paint, to hit the floor of consciousness, where its like white light -- where all of the colors are mixed together to form white. on that journey, the mantra sort of beoomes like monet. then like seurat, but along the way things can seem very Dali like. Ultimately, you get to the most primitive state -- a totally blank canvas. Its from this white canvas state that all art, all creativity emerges. > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > claims of "science." > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > feel something we personally value. > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or > > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: > > > "heart-putting" = faith). > > > > > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to". > > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it > > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and > > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe > > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely > > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just > > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is > > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely > > means you've been duped. > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. > > > > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on > > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) > > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, > > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, > > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of "science." Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. > > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: > > "heart-putting" = faith). > > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to". > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely > means you've been duped. > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. > > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: "heart-putting" = faith). The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to". No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means you've been duped. Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > > someone wrote: > > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your > > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science. > > > > > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share > > > > your faith. > > > > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" > > > associated with it is "faith based." > > I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of > "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word > "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates > the environment of anything that has the word "yoga" > associated with it that I don't think there can > *exist* any such thing as "yogic science." > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: "heart-putting" = faith).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > someone wrote: > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science. > > > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share > > > your faith. > > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" > > associated with it is "faith based." I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates the environment of anything that has the word "yoga" associated with it that I don't think there can *exist* any such thing as "yogic science." Claims of personal experience are, IMO, *always* influenced by the teachings and the tradition of the environment one learned it in. I have seen no evidence that people who have spent long periods of time in "yogic" environments are *capable* of distinguishing their faith from their personal experience. One influences the other. That influence can be on the level of moodmaking, as we have all seen (and many of us identify with from our TM days), or it can be on the level of "influence," coloring the ways in which we *inter- pret* our personal experiences. This influence is present from the moment of one's first introductory lecture, or before, if one has read a bit or has been exposed to other spiritual environments. Would you have recognized transcendence as a personal experience if it had not been described to you in your intro lecture? You can say that you would have, but at this point there is no way to be sure. The description of the phenomenon preceded the experience of the phenomenon, and thus influenced it. > > I think that is a bit of an ignorant association > > but let's use "sound physics" instead. That is unless you > > see "physics" as "faith based." :D :D :D > > Again, invoking sciency sounding terms doesn't make the claims > more scientific. Exactly. This is an invocation of the "If I use another vocabulary to describe it, it won't be faith" shuck and jive routine that we are so familiar with from TM. :-) > > > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting > > > the words yogic and science together does not make it so. No more than "creation science" makes fundamentalist Christianity any less fundamentalist, or Christian. It's shuck and jive. > > > > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in your > > > > attempt to debase TM. > > > > > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I > > > just don't buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and > > > think it is a nice relaxation technique. So what is the > > > baby, all the beliefs that surround the practice? > > > > Dismissing the various branches of yoga as anyone would notice > > following this tract. And what is wrong with that? I dismiss them -- ALL of them. I don't believe that ANY of them are in any way "scientific," or anything other than faith-based philosophy. But I still practice many things that came from those faith-based philosophies. What I DON'T do, is claim that the reason I practice these things is based on anything OTHER than faith, even if it's just the faith that the form of meditation I practiced yesterday and was pleasant will be pleasant today. There is faith in THAT, much less anything else we tend to claim as the benefits or goals of meditation. Like Curtis, I don't believe much in "magical mantras," or in magical ways of "transmitting" them. While I have *experienced* the latter, personally I found the medi- tations that resulted from that initiation to be no more profound or useful than those meditations I learned in a big room together with hundreds of other people, and no initiation ceremony. Sometimes even without a mantra. "Yogic science" for me boils down to the word "faith," and more than anything else, faith in "authority." I'm not real big on "authority" these days, whether the authority invoked is Maharishi or Buddha or Krishna or Guru Dev or Patanjali or Padmasambhava. I don't hold ANY of them to be complete authorities -- they were probably correct about some of the things they believed and taught, and they were probably incorrect about some of the things they believed and taught. I believe from what they have said only what resonates with my own intuition and heart and sense of ethics, and I toss on the rubbish heap anything from what they have said that doesn't. And at least one of these guys would agree with my stance. His words on the subject grace the Home Page of this discussion group: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha, from the Dhammapada
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 25, 2008, at 2:17 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:43 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: It wasn't really population growth that I was thinking about when I brought up the topic of sexual energy. There are areas which western medecine seems clueless, and which I believe are legitimate area of study, and which have been studied and mapped out by eastern schools. Actually an MD, Wilhelm Reich, introduced the idea of a universal energy, connected with human sexuality and orgasm which he called orgone. He was not only ostracized for his claims, but later imprisoned for devices he believed could localize prana/orgone. Before he was imprisoned and his books burned en masse. For a wonderful account of his discovery from the POV of his young son, check out The Book of Dreams by Peter Reich. I've spent some time in Reich's old laboratory and stayed at his home in the western mountains of Maine. Based on the replication of his experiments that I've witnessed, he does appear to have re- discovered, albeit in scientific terms, the force we know as prana. In fact, when I last visited his lab, I had the opportunity to view some old 16mm footage of isolation of prana in vacuum tubes and a motor which ran on life energy. The plans for this motor were stolen and have never been recovered. That american organization, the haters of truth, the Buddisths of Kali Yuga, the core of everything civilized nations despise about the americans, the FBI; they stole it. They new Reich was on to something important and put this visionary initiate in jail, where he died. Colorful ideas Nab, but if it was anyone, it was probably the military. The Air Force used to harass him by having fighter pilots swoop right over his observatory, which sits high on a hill. Reich had made the mistake of sharing his atmospheric orgone findings with the Air Force...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> > On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:43 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > It wasn't really population growth that I was thinking about when I > > brought up the topic of sexual energy. There are areas which > > western medecine seems clueless, and which I believe are legitimate > > area of study, and which have been studied and mapped out by eastern > > schools. > > Actually an MD, Wilhelm Reich, introduced the idea of a universal > energy, connected with human sexuality and orgasm which he called > orgone. He was not only ostracized for his claims, but later > imprisoned for devices he believed could localize prana/orgone. > Before he was imprisoned and his books burned en masse. For a > wonderful account of his discovery from the POV of his young son, > check out The Book of Dreams by Peter Reich. > > I've spent some time in Reich's old laboratory and stayed at his home > in the western mountains of Maine. Based on the replication of his > experiments that I've witnessed, he does appear to have re- > discovered, albeit in scientific terms, the force we know as prana. > In fact, when I last visited his lab, I had the opportunity to view > some old 16mm footage of isolation of prana in vacuum tubes and a > motor which ran on life energy. The plans for this motor were stolen > and have never been recovered. That american organization, the haters of truth, the Buddisths of Kali Yuga, the core of everything civilized nations despise about the americans, the FBI; they stole it. They new Reich was on to something important and put this visionary initiate in jail, where he died. http://www.shareintl.org
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:43 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: It wasn't really population growth that I was thinking about when I brought up the topic of sexual energy. There are areas which western medecine seems clueless, and which I believe are legitimate area of study, and which have been studied and mapped out by eastern schools. Actually an MD, Wilhelm Reich, introduced the idea of a universal energy, connected with human sexuality and orgasm which he called orgone. He was not only ostracized for his claims, but later imprisoned for devices he believed could localize prana/orgone. Before he was imprisoned and his books burned en masse. For a wonderful account of his discovery from the POV of his young son, check out The Book of Dreams by Peter Reich. I've spent some time in Reich's old laboratory and stayed at his home in the western mountains of Maine. Based on the replication of his experiments that I've witnessed, he does appear to have re- discovered, albeit in scientific terms, the force we know as prana. In fact, when I last visited his lab, I had the opportunity to view some old 16mm footage of isolation of prana in vacuum tubes and a motor which ran on life energy. The plans for this motor were stolen and have never been recovered. Despite his egregious treatment and persecution, his theories have gone on to found several current therapies like medical orgonomy, bioenergetics, Rolfing and numerous others. In order to prevent further destruction of his work, his remaining papers were put in a time capsule at Harvard University until 50 years after his death. They were unsealed just last fall. The College of Orgonomy in NJ carries on his medical work to this day. One area are the chakras. One area is kudalini evergy. And one area pertains to the subtle science of sexual energy, and the effect this energy has on thoughts and actions. I have no illusions that the general population of India or other Asian nations have any interest in these areas, but the fact remains that this is where the study of these disciplines originated. Do we dismiss what these cultures have contributed to arts, sciences, and mystic schools because the present culture is in such a shambles-at least in some respects. Certainly explosive population growth is likely to exacerbate many problems, but this is not what I was addressing in the study of sexual energy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:38 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII Does 'VII' refer to the subtonic chord (in C, B-flat)? In C, it would be B in the Ionian mode. In the harmonized scale, the 7th harmonization is a dissonant sounding diminished chord. Thus a chord sequence in that progression would be very dissonant sounding, to some almost unlistenable, chord sequence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to > replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII Does 'VII' refer to the subtonic chord (in C, B-flat)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> > Do we dismiss what these cultures have contributed to arts, > > sciences, and mystic schools because the present culture is in such a shambles-at least in some respects. I think it's a fair question to ask, what can mysticism > contribute to making people's lives better? Has it done that in > the countries it came from? Has it made people more empathetic and more willing to help others? It seems, in some ways at least, > that mysticism in New Age circles has become the new > fundamentalism. All I can say is that in the quest for "who", "what", "why" the path led to the eastern philosophies. Whether it is the answer to making people empathetic, more willing to help others, I don't know. But for me it was an important discovery that put me on the path of what I will call spiritual awakening. And I feel fortunate to be on this path, even if it is the "path less traveled by", which assuredly it is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 24, 2008, at 7:43 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: Do we dismiss what these cultures have contributed to arts, sciences, and mystic schools because the present culture is in such a shambles-at least in some respects. Interesting question, now that you bring it up. I have always felt, as long as I have looked at Indian art, a real sterility and lack of any heart in it--at least the Vedic type of art you see glorified by the TMO. Expressionless people/gods on artificially white, "cleansed"-looking backgrounds. And yeah, I think it's a fair question to ask, what can mysticism contribute to making people's lives better? Has it done that in the countries it came from? Has it made people more empathetic and more willing to help others? It seems, in some ways at least, that mysticism in New Age circles has become the new fundamentalism. Certainly explosive population growth is likely to exacerbate many problems, but this is not what I was addressing in the study of sexual energy. Nor was I , I was just using that as an example of how knowledge doesn't seem to have resulted in better lives or more caring cultures. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2008, at 11:52 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > I know you are talking about sounds, and I really don't have an > > opinion about that. But as for something like sexual energy, I > > think there is a lot the eastern schools know, that the west is in > > the dark about. > > Such as? If the eastern guys know so much, how come their > population problem is so much worse than in the west? > > Simply telling people to "just say no" isn't much of a solution. > > Sal It wasn't really population growth that I was thinking about when I brought up the topic of sexual energy. There are areas which western medecine seems clueless, and which I believe are legitimate area of study, and which have been studied and mapped out by eastern schools. One area are the chakras. One area is kudalini evergy. And one area pertains to the subtle science of sexual energy, and the effect this energy has on thoughts and actions. I have no illusions that the general population of India or other Asian nations have any interest in these areas, but the fact remains that this is where the study of these disciplines originated. Do we dismiss what these cultures have contributed to arts, sciences, and mystic schools because the present culture is in such a shambles-at least in some respects. Certainly explosive population growth is likely to exacerbate many problems, but this is not what I was addressing in the study of sexual energy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2008, at 11:52 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > I know you are talking about sounds, and I really don't have an > > opinion about that. But as for something like sexual energy, I > > think there is a lot the eastern schools know, that the west is in > > the dark about. > > Such as? If the eastern guys know so much, how come their > population problem is so much worse than in the west? > > Simply telling people to "just say no" isn't much of a solution. > > Sal > I don't know if anyone has already touched on this. There are certain areas not touched by western medecine and which I believe eastern culture provides significant insights. One is the study of chakaras. One is the study of kundalini. And one is the study of sexual energy. But the study of sexual energy, at least as I am concerned doesn't pertain to population growth. The area of sexual energy I am referring to has to do with how it affects one's thoughts and actions. That is all. And I don't for a minute believe that the study of these areas is of much importance to the general population in India or other Asian cultures. But this is where the study orginally took place, and this is where most of the informaton orginally came from. Nothing to do with "over population".
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> > > > Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to > > replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions > > with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. > > Overdub some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-))) > > > I'm afraid in this case more might end up being less... :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
This thread has been kicking some serious ass! Nothing to add except, thanks to the writers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" richardhughes103@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > > > wrote: > > > snip > What is left is the primitive mind, > > > effectively an > > > > > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not the theory that Travis and company are going with these > > > days. > > > > > > > > The "shutting down" isn't of some specific part of the cortext. > Its > > > of the thalamic > > > > activity that serves to merge cortical activity with the raw > > > sensory data > > > > while still allowign the brain to remain alert. The various parts > > > of the cortex > > > > remain active, but they are no longer modified by > sensory-feedback > > > loops > > > > as is the case with waking and dreaming states, and unlike > > > sleeping, the > > > > brain remains alert. So the activity that is going on is pure > > > optimization > > > > of the connections of the brain without distractions from the > > > outside world OR > > > > from the inner world of dreams and imagination. > > > > > > > > Lawson > > > > > > Good point Lawson. Stu's idea here is too pat. It's > > > a nice idea that we are just returning to a more happy > > > primitive state but is there any evidence? Maybe Stu's > > > view is that of a culutural christian who would interpret > > > it in terms of returning to a better time, a garden of Eden. > > I am suggesting that the experience is the same. However the > interpretation of the experience reveals more about the person's > perspective than anything about the experience itself. > > I would not say that shutting down "thought" is a return to a happy > primitive state. Happiness may be a valid interpretation of the state. > However, in a book called Nausea by Sartre he interpreted the peak > experience as nausea. Also valid. > > Therefore, one would have to look at all the possible interpretations of > the meditative state as valid and break them down into various > categories. I think we would find a spectrum of interpretations like > primitive/happy, mythic/godlike, rational/relaxation response and so on. > All valid, all reflective of traits of the individual and his/her > society. Many of us have prolly found ourselves interpreting the state > various ways ourselves. > > The next step is to analyze these various perspectives and understand > the underlying common "truth" to all of them. I hold that the various > perspectives are not equal and some interpretations are more beneficial > than others depending on the interpreters life situation. A dessert > nomad is going to find greater benefit in one interpretation than a > modern western person with an entirely different set of values and > attitudes. > > > > > > > Perhaps it's as unlikely as MMYs idea that we are experiencing > > > more subtle and refined thoughts finally ending up with "pure" > > > thought when to me it seems to be a pleasant kind of fugue state. > > > > Precisely. > > > > Eh, you can see where the impression of "more subtle, powerful > thought" > > would arise. As the brain relaxes, it tends to become more coherent. > > If the thalamus is shutting down its function as gateway to the > senses, > > then any thinking will be in a less active form, and might well appear > > to be quieter and more subtle internally. And in fact, in a sense, it > > just might be, as it would be activity imposed on a brain that is > working > > with larger and larger collections of neurons working in-phase. > > > > I believe it isn't a wrong description to call this the reservoir of > creativity > > and thought. The larger the range of connections involved, the higher > > the processing power, according to neural network theory. > > > > Lawson > > > I thank you for that Lawson. I love how mind research is leading us to > some interesting mapping of brain architecture. As I have talked to > these neuroscientists I have found the jury is out. IMHO the world of > ideas these maps form are far more accurate model than the maps using > sun gods and chakras. > > By shutting down the prefrontal cortex I am saying more or less the same > thing as you are. The management function, which is the primary concern > of the cortex is effectively shut down during meditation. Your point is > well taken unlike unconsciousness there is still "in-phase" activity. > In any event this interpretation of the occasion of meditation still is > interpretation and mostly reveals our predilection for methodological > research as an explanation rather than resorting to the
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" richardhughes103@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > > wrote: > snip What is left is the primitive mind, > > effectively an > > > > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > > > > > > > > > > That's not the theory that Travis and company are going with these > > days. > > > > > > The "shutting down" isn't of some specific part of the cortext. Its > > of the thalamic > > > activity that serves to merge cortical activity with the raw > > sensory data > > > while still allowign the brain to remain alert. The various parts > > of the cortex > > > remain active, but they are no longer modified by sensory-feedback > > loops > > > as is the case with waking and dreaming states, and unlike > > sleeping, the > > > brain remains alert. So the activity that is going on is pure > > optimization > > > of the connections of the brain without distractions from the > > outside world OR > > > from the inner world of dreams and imagination. > > > > > > Lawson > > > > Good point Lawson. Stu's idea here is too pat. It's > > a nice idea that we are just returning to a more happy > > primitive state but is there any evidence? Maybe Stu's > > view is that of a culutural christian who would interpret > > it in terms of returning to a better time, a garden of Eden. I am suggesting that the experience is the same. However the interpretation of the experience reveals more about the person's perspective than anything about the experience itself. I would not say that shutting down "thought" is a return to a happy primitive state. Happiness may be a valid interpretation of the state. However, in a book called Nausea by Sartre he interpreted the peak experience as nausea. Also valid. Therefore, one would have to look at all the possible interpretations of the meditative state as valid and break them down into various categories. I think we would find a spectrum of interpretations like primitive/happy, mythic/godlike, rational/relaxation response and so on. All valid, all reflective of traits of the individual and his/her society. Many of us have prolly found ourselves interpreting the state various ways ourselves. The next step is to analyze these various perspectives and understand the underlying common "truth" to all of them. I hold that the various perspectives are not equal and some interpretations are more beneficial than others depending on the interpreters life situation. A dessert nomad is going to find greater benefit in one interpretation than a modern western person with an entirely different set of values and attitudes. > > > > Perhaps it's as unlikely as MMYs idea that we are experiencing > > more subtle and refined thoughts finally ending up with "pure" > > thought when to me it seems to be a pleasant kind of fugue state. > > Precisely. > > Eh, you can see where the impression of "more subtle, powerful thought" > would arise. As the brain relaxes, it tends to become more coherent. > If the thalamus is shutting down its function as gateway to the senses, > then any thinking will be in a less active form, and might well appear > to be quieter and more subtle internally. And in fact, in a sense, it > just might be, as it would be activity imposed on a brain that is working > with larger and larger collections of neurons working in-phase. > > I believe it isn't a wrong description to call this the reservoir of creativity > and thought. The larger the range of connections involved, the higher > the processing power, according to neural network theory. > > Lawson > I thank you for that Lawson. I love how mind research is leading us to some interesting mapping of brain architecture. As I have talked to these neuroscientists I have found the jury is out. IMHO the world of ideas these maps form are far more accurate model than the maps using sun gods and chakras. By shutting down the prefrontal cortex I am saying more or less the same thing as you are. The management function, which is the primary concern of the cortex is effectively shut down during meditation. Your point is well taken unlike unconsciousness there is still "in-phase" activity. In any event this interpretation of the occasion of meditation still is interpretation and mostly reveals our predilection for methodological research as an explanation rather than resorting to the world of unicorns and moonbeams. Our discussion of meditation brings out the inner-geek in us. Its the post-modern way. True to the skills of yoga (or the practice of decontruction) we hold the practice before us and observe it, be with it, understand it for what it is. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > >> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a > >> > > lot > of yogic science. > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" associated with > it is "faith based." No, just some of the claims like the different effects of the mantras. Although as I said in another post this is irrelevant in TM after the first advanced technique. I think that is a bit of an ignorant association > but let's use "sound physics" instead. That is unless you see "physics" > as "faith based." :D :D :D Again, invoking sciency sounding terms doesn't make the claims more scientific. External sound physics and thinking thoughts are two completely different fields and you are tying to use it as an analogy to prove a point. > > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the > > words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason > > to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these > > claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on > > their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is > > traditional. > > > Depends, there are many yogi who believe that it was done by trial and > error (IOW, not "cognized"). However anyone can observe the effects of > different sounds on objects. OK let's see. Take a guitar body for instance, > guitarists know that different types of wood and different shapes of > bodies produce different qualities of sound for a guitar. Otherwise > there would only be one model of guitar, right? Again, your are comparing an external vibration with an internal thought and I don't believe this is reasonable. The measurably different physical properties in guitars is not the same thing as thinking a thought. For one the external sound vibration is of air molecules. I think you have just heard this kind of proof by analogy so often you are comfortable with it without really thinking about how different these areas really are. > > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt > > to debase TM. > > > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't > > buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice > > relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that > > surround the practice? > > > Dismissing the various branches of yoga as anyone would notice following > this tract. I think many of their claims are faith based and I don't share the faith. I am still interested in what practicers such as yourself have to say about your experiences so I am not dismissing anything. I just have not been convinced by your proof by analogy so far. > > There are differences between different > sounds and their effect > > upon the human nervous system. > > > > Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't > > believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than > > religious tradition. Remember that Maharishi started teaching TM in > > India with 2 mantras right? If you are claiming that the TM mantras > > are assigned according to some profound criteria I have one response: > > The second advanced technique. This marketing claim doesn't hold up. > > > No, I'm not claiming that at all. All I'm claiming is that different > mantras have different effects and it is due to the resonance of the> sound which also works at the mental level. That is not dogma as it can > be observed at the audible level. They are different in what parts of the body are involved. A thought is not a sound vibration of air molecules hitting the ear drum. It may be an electrical or chemical event in the brain, but it is not the same thing as an external sound vibration. > > > > > > > > We aren't talking about audible music we are talking about a thought> > in your head. And shaming tactics in a discussion of ideas haven't> > worked on me since I was 10. > Excuse me? Music is a field very much involved with sound and very much > involved with the psychology of sound both audibly and mentally. I > have had many interesting discussions about this with other musicians. Perhaps they were more willing to accept your prepositional premise that thoughts and sounds are the same. I don't. The psychology of sound is an entirely different topic. > You seem to be an exception. I would prefer the term "exceptional", but I guess that will have to do. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Vaj wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2008, at 4:49 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > >> But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You >> are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in >> consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to >> your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the >> intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing >> sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. > > > Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to > replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions > with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. Overdub > some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-))) Oooh, that should cook! And how about some rap record track scratching while we're at it and maybe some Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the background. :D :D :D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
sparaig wrote: > Actually a researcher named Patricia Carrington claimed that she could > detect different brain wave patterns in her test subjects when they used > different mantras in her "clinically simulated meditation" technique modeled > after TM. > > I don't think she ever published that particular bit of research however. > > I've been told that different people show consistent EEG patterns for using > the > same Sutra in different sessions, but that the pattern is different from > individual to individual. > > So it isn't a stretch to assume that different mantras might have some > different long-term effect. > > > > Lawson Absolutely. It's not a big stretch of logic to see that if a sound has an effect on an audible level it can also have a similar effect mentally. So indeed different mantras have different effects and different effects on the nervous system. There are all kinds of mantras for things other than just meditation and they have different effects on the nervous system and the body such as ones used in ayurveda. These I have used and have striking effects and aid in balancing the system. I would certainly expect these mantras to produce different brain wave patterns.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: >> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a >> > lot > of yogic science. > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" associated with it is "faith based." I think that is a bit of an ignorant association but let's use "sound physics" instead. That is unless you see "physics" as "faith based." :D :D :D > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the > words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason > to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these > claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on > their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is > traditional. > Depends, there are many yogi who believe that it was done by trial and error (IOW, not "cognized"). However anyone can observe the effects of different sounds on objects. Take a guitar body for instance, guitarists know that different types of wood and different shapes of bodies produce different qualities of sound for a guitar. Otherwise there would only be one model of guitar, right? > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt > to debase TM. > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't > buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice > relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that > surround the practice? > Dismissing the various branches of yoga as anyone would notice following this tract. > There are differences between different > sounds and their effect > upon the human nervous system. > > Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't > believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than > religious tradition. Remember that Maharishi started teaching TM in > India with 2 mantras right? If you are claiming that the TM mantras > are assigned according to some profound criteria I have one response: > The second advanced technique. This marketing claim doesn't hold up. > No, I'm not claiming that at all. All I'm claiming is that different mantras have different effects and it is due to the resonance of the sound which also works at the mental level. That is not dogma as it can be observed at the audible level. > > > > We aren't talking about audible music we are talking about a thought > in your head. And shaming tactics in a discussion of ideas haven't > worked on me since I was 10. Excuse me? Music is a field very much involved with sound and very much involved with the psychology of sound both audibly and mentally. I have had many interesting discussions about this with other musicians. You seem to be an exception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Hugo wrote: > Maybe Stu's view is that of a cultural > christian who would interpret it in terms > of returning to a better time, a garden > of Eden. > Maybe so, but the myth of the eternal return predates Christianity by about 10,000 years. The myth of the 'garden' first arose in Micronesia, concerning the 'tree of life' and the garden it grows in. Obviously this myth was imported into the land of Mesopotamia by the Sumerians a long time ago. The myth probably arrived in South Asia after the flood. > Perhaps it's as unlikely as MMYs idea that > we are experiencing more subtle and refined > thoughts finally ending up with "pure" > thought... > You probably meant 'pure consciousness'; there's no 'pure thought' in TM or in the TM tradition. The term pure thought is a contradiction in terms: all thought is part and parcel of maya, not substantial, subject to change. The idea in TM is to go beyond thinking altogether, to be in a state of 'no-thought'. > ...when to me it seems to be a pleasant > kind of fugue state. > Subtle experience of thoughts can be described as in a fugue state, but the state of 'pure consciousness' is described by the Adi Shankara as a state full of bliss consciousness. Marshy agrees with this. Titles of interest: 'Eden in the East' The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia by Stephen Oppenheimer Orion, 1999 'The Masks of God' Vol. 2: Oriental Mythology by Joseph Campbell Viking, 1962
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:58 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your
rejecting a
lot > of yogic science.
I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith.
What you're not getting is that yogic "science" is not faith based at
all: it is direct experience based.
Experienced based and the methods of science are not the same thing as
I'm sure you know. People could claim "Jesus science" because they
"experience" being saved but it doesn't mean they are using the
methods of science.
I would say subjective science rather than objective science then.
Either needs a steady and reliable instrument with which to
investigate it's nature.
You'd find it easier to understand this if you had a teacher who had
experientially guided you through the various stages of meditation.
I'm not challenging the usefulness or the compelling nature of your
experience. I respect that you feel very convinced. That conviction
doesn't translate to other people as easily which is appropriate.
Well that is the same with external science and subjective science.
Just because Pons and Fleischman say they can produce cold fusion in
a jar doesn't mean I accept it either. I'd have to laboriously try to
replicate their experiment. Same with some internal states.
Just because you were burned by a false guru is a bad reason to
assume that other meditative teachers are not authentic. But it is a
reason to be suspicious.
I would not sum up my mostly positive experiences with Maharishis as
being burned by a false guru.
Sorry, I do not get that impression listening to you.
It appears to me that since you did not have the benefit of such
training, you go to the opposite pole of experience: objective,
verifiable materialistic experience and embrace that as your belief:
faith in science. And clearly science is also faith based. We don't
replicate every peer-reviewed we see published; we take it on faith
that it's "good science". Similarly in terms of internal states, we
rely on the authenticity of the teacher and the authenticity of his
or her experience. The problem of course is, in either case, if you
have a crooked scientist or a fraudulent yogi your very basis of
inquiry is inherently flawed.
I agree with your critique of the application of the scientific method
by people. I don't agree that I have somehow become a cartoon person
who only believes in material things. Some of my most cherished
experiences are not material things. It is an unfair reduction of my
life.
I was not referring to all of your life, merely in regards to you TM
experience and how that seems to have changed your appreciation of
internal meditative states. I feel relatively certain that you have
many internal experiences you do value just like everyone else.
However I do see a disconnect between you not finding the inner
experiences authentic in the way they were claimed by your teacher
and your claim that these were positive internal experiences. If the
two (the gurus claim and your final decision on their intrinsic
value) don't jive it would seem to me that the claim (below) that
such experiences were "great" are at loggerheads. Perhaps you meant
to say 'they were great at the time' or maybe that they were
'pleasurable' states?
In the same way that external validation can take place, so can
validation of internal states. I think you should be open to the fact
that you may have been "burned" by a fraudulent internal scientist
("yogi"), but just as a fraudulent scientist does not invalidate all
of scientific inquiry, nor does a fraudulent yogi invalidate all
verifiable internal states.
I had great internal experiences with Maharishi's programs. I just
don't accept his explanation of what they mean. You may have a great
handle on your own internal mental states but I doubt you have one on
mine.
Also similarly, when a faulty or fraudulent scientist attempts to
present bad science, peers should be made aware of the error, so too
should fraudulent yogis be exposed for their mountebankery. It's
unfortunate that such persons exist, but they do.
I don't share your experience of other yogis who you feel are superior
to Maharishi in some way.
Well of course that would depend on whether or not you had some
similar experience with other yogis.
In your own example
it's forced you to be averse to a whole dimension of inquiry, the
internal ones. This is however a natural response to abuse. You've
been wounded in some way and so you (or any of us) react accordingly.
I've just come to different conclusions than you have Vaj. No need to
demonize my position as being "a natural response to abuse."
I'm referring to mindsets you've shared here before, like the recent
example you gave of actually believing ot
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
<(In no way a satiric dig at you.)> Well, just for the record, satiric digs at me are welcome and appropriate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > I accept that you have had experiences with > > > > yogis that I haven't had that you value. I do not accept that > you are > > > > somehow looking at life in a more profound or special way than I > am. > > > > I appreciate that you are looking at it very differently, which > is one > > > > of the things I value in our communication. My own was just as > > > > thoughtfully and carefully chosen. > > > > > > Frankly, mine seems much more random and driven by outside events than > > > thoughtfully and carefully chosen -- despite how thoughtful my plans > > > are or have been. Power on with your iron will. Thats awesome. > > > > > > I'm not claiming an iron anything...well...not my will anyway! I'm > > just saying my intellectual position today was thought out, it is not > > an emotional reaction just as Vaj's adn your's are I presume. > > > > When I left the conceptual model of TM at 31 I realized I had a huge > > task at hand, to rebuild my epistemology in light of what I considered > > new information. With a few friends who shared my journey, I began to > > fill in some intellectual gaps on POVs on the experiences I had had > > with Maharishis. We did our best to bring in as many different POVs > > as we could. We did our best and it turned out that for me , our best > > was good enough. I felt more comfortable with my new POV than the one > > that I had acquired from Maharishis. That process continues today. > > > I know. I was just riffing on a thought / reposne / self-evaluation, > goofing on myself and life. (In no way a satiric dig at you.) > > On the more serious side, deconstructing personal myths -- and > resourcing beliefs with original context and source (re my recent > posts on articles indicating the ironic and disconcerting split of > such) are valuable if not essential processes. Liberating. (Step right > up, just do this simple method and you will be liberated! :) ) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>
> >> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a
> > lot > of yogic science.
> >
> > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith.
>
> What you're not getting is that yogic "science" is not faith based at
> all: it is direct experience based.
>
> You'd find it easier to understand this if you had a teacher who had
> experientially guided you through the various stages of meditation.
> Just because you were burned by a false guru is a bad reason to
> assume that other meditative teachers are not authentic. But it is a
> reason to be suspicious.
>
> It appears to me that since you did not have the benefit of such
> training, you go to the opposite pole of experience: objective,
> verifiable materialistic experience and embrace that as your belief:
> faith in science. And clearly science is also faith based. We don't
> replicate every peer-reviewed we see published; we take it on faith
> that it's "good science". Similarly in terms of internal states, we
> rely on the authenticity of the teacher and the authenticity of his
> or her experience. The problem of course is, in either case, if you
> have a crooked scientist or a fraudulent yogi your very basis of
> inquiry is inherently flawed.
>
> In the same way that external validation can take place, so can
> validation of internal states. I think you should be open to the fact
> that you may have been "burned" by a fraudulent internal scientist
> ("yogi"), but just as a fraudulent scientist does not invalidate all
> of scientific inquiry, nor does a fraudulent yogi invalidate all
> verifiable internal states.
>
> Also similarly, when a faulty or fraudulent scientist attempts to
> present bad science, peers should be made aware of the error, so too
> should fraudulent yogis be exposed for their mountebankery. It's
> unfortunate that such persons exist, but they do. In your own example
> it's forced you to be averse to a whole dimension of inquiry, the
> internal ones. This is however a natural response to abuse. You've
> been wounded in some way and so you (or any of us) react accordingly.
>
I believe it was you who presented research about how our minds can deceive
us into thinking that we have "decided" to do something even though brain
imaging shows that the preparation for the activity began several seconds
before
the actual "decision" took place.
The point is: internal experiences can guide researchers in investigating what
is going on in the brain, but they shouldn't be used to invalidate the findings.
Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > I accept that you have had experiences with > > > yogis that I haven't had that you value. I do not accept that you are > > > somehow looking at life in a more profound or special way than I am. > > > I appreciate that you are looking at it very differently, which is one > > > of the things I value in our communication. My own was just as > > > thoughtfully and carefully chosen. > > > > Frankly, mine seems much more random and driven by outside events than > > thoughtfully and carefully chosen -- despite how thoughtful my plans > > are or have been. Power on with your iron will. Thats awesome. > > > I'm not claiming an iron anything...well...not my will anyway! I'm > just saying my intellectual position today was thought out, it is not > an emotional reaction just as Vaj's adn your's are I presume. > > When I left the conceptual model of TM at 31 I realized I had a huge > task at hand, to rebuild my epistemology in light of what I considered > new information. With a few friends who shared my journey, I began to > fill in some intellectual gaps on POVs on the experiences I had had > with Maharishis. We did our best to bring in as many different POVs > as we could. We did our best and it turned out that for me , our best > was good enough. I felt more comfortable with my new POV than the one > that I had acquired from Maharishis. That process continues today. I know. I was just riffing on a thought / reposne / self-evaluation, goofing on myself and life. (In no way a satiric dig at you.) On the more serious side, deconstructing personal myths -- and resourcing beliefs with original context and source (re my recent posts on articles indicating the ironic and disconcerting split of such) are valuable if not essential processes. Liberating. (Step right up, just do this simple method and you will be liberated! :) )
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Hugo wrote: > Does anyone know what the earliest > known mantra technique is? > It all depends on the definition of the term 'mantra'. There are no mantras used in the TM technique, only 'bija' mantras are used. The Rig Veda is composed of 'mantras' extolling the supernal deities or the forces of nature. The Vedic mantras are words with semantic meaning. Hindu Bijas mantras are concerned with the devatas, the deified heroes of Indian literature, such as Vasudeva, Krishna, Balarama, and Ramchandra, for supplication or for the gaining of boons. Buddhist bija mantras are concerned with the enlightenment tradition. > Difficult to know but even the geographic > whereabouts of early spiritual cultures > would be interesting. > The earliest use of mantras are in the Rig Veda, which was probably composed in the land of five-rivers, modern Pakistan, after the arrival of the Aryan speakers. That would be around 1500 B.C. But mantras are not the same as bija mantras. According to Swami Ageananda Bharati, the bija mantras of the tantric tradition are composed of "phonemes, or quasi phonemes, or mixed-phonemes and quasi phonemes", that are given out in a ritual initiation by a guru. The former are the words found in the Vedas, which were composed in Sanskrit. Bija mantras in contrast, are esoteric sounds not found in a standard Sanskrit lexicon. The use of bija mantras is a relativley recent practice. The first use of bija mantras is probably the Buddhist 'Heart Sutra, (Prajnaparmita Hridaya) which was composed around 200 B.C., probably in the Swat Valley. Hindu bija mantras came after that, along with the Indian alchemists, the so-called '84 Maha-Siddhas' of Siddha Yoga Tantric tradition. The TM bija mantras are found in the Sri Vidya tradition of South Asian Hindu tantrism, the sect founded by the Adi Shankara, who composed the 'Anandalahari' and who placed the Sri Chakra, with the TM bija mantras inscribed, at the four seats of learning. Work cited: 'The Tantric Tradition' by Agehananda Bharati Rider, 1965 Other titles of interest: 'Yoga: Immortality and Freedom' The ideas, symbolism and methods of yoga as they are expressed in tantrism, in alchemy, in folklore, in the aboriginal devotion of India. by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press, 1970 'Indo-Tibetan Buddhism' Indian Buddhists & Their Tibetan Successors by David Snellgrove Shambhala, 2003 'The Alchemical Body' Siddha Traditions in Medieval India by David Gordon White University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > > > > > I think we are pre-adapted in that our brains > > > > are so complex things or tehcniques, even drugs, > > > > knock us off centre and because we have such a > > > > clever illusion creator in our heads that disrupting > > > > it can give us a glimpse of what we call heaven > > > > for no other reason than it is so pleasant. > > > > > > I don't think its necessary to use the supernatural to explain the > > > phenomenon of transcendence. By replacing thought with a > meaningless > > > sound we effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex, the center > for > > > rational thought. What is left is the primitive mind, > effectively an > > > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > > > > > > > That's not the theory that Travis and company are going with these > days. > > > > The "shutting down" isn't of some specific part of the cortext. Its > of the thalamic > > activity that serves to merge cortical activity with the raw > sensory data > > while still allowign the brain to remain alert. The various parts > of the cortex > > remain active, but they are no longer modified by sensory-feedback > loops > > as is the case with waking and dreaming states, and unlike > sleeping, the > > brain remains alert. So the activity that is going on is pure > optimization > > of the connections of the brain without distractions from the > outside world OR > > from the inner world of dreams and imagination. > > > > Lawson > > Good point Lawson. Stu's idea here is too pat. It's > a nice idea that we are just returning to a more happy > primitive state but is there any evidence? Maybe Stu's > view is that of a culutural christian who would interpret > it in terms of returning to a better time, a garden of Eden. > > Perhaps it's as unlikely as MMYs idea that we are experiencing > more subtle and refined thoughts finally ending up with "pure" > thought when to me it seems to be a pleasant kind of fugue state. > Eh, you can see where the impression of "more subtle, powerful thought" would arise. As the brain relaxes, it tends to become more coherent. If the thalamus is shutting down its function as gateway to the senses, then any thinking will be in a less active form, and might well appear to be quieter and more subtle internally. And in fact, in a sense, it just might be, as it would be activity imposed on a brain that is working with larger and larger collections of neurons working in-phase. I believe it isn't a wrong description to call this the reservoir of creativity and thought. The larger the range of connections involved, the higher the processing power, according to neural network theory. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "There are differences between different > sounds and their effect > upon the human nervous system." > > Well, yeah! How do you think you hear and distinguish language. > Different sounds have different effects on the ear drum, auditory > nerves, and impulses sent to the brain. No exactly profound or new > insights, it would seem. > > If however you are implying that some sounds (devoid of symbolic > representation) promote health, wealth or wisdom, then that is a huge > flying leap over and beyond the quote above. > > A parallel logic might be: "Different objects have a different feel > that others and THEREFORE, by touching this thing, you will gain > infinite happiness happiness." Sounds more like a good bar line. Both your posts on this topic are right on New! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > I accept that you have had experiences with > > yogis that I haven't had that you value. I do not accept that you are > > somehow looking at life in a more profound or special way than I am. > > I appreciate that you are looking at it very differently, which is one > > of the things I value in our communication. My own was just as > > thoughtfully and carefully chosen. > > Frankly, mine seems much more random and driven by outside events than > thoughtfully and carefully chosen -- despite how thoughtful my plans > are or have been. Power on with your iron will. Thats awesome. I'm not claiming an iron anything...well...not my will anyway! I'm just saying my intellectual position today was thought out, it is not an emotional reaction just as Vaj's adn your's are I presume. When I left the conceptual model of TM at 31 I realized I had a huge task at hand, to rebuild my epistemology in light of what I considered new information. With a few friends who shared my journey, I began to fill in some intellectual gaps on POVs on the experiences I had had with Maharishis. We did our best to bring in as many different POVs as we could. We did our best and it turned out that for me , our best was good enough. I felt more comfortable with my new POV than the one that I had acquired from Maharishis. That process continues today. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to > replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions > with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. > Overdub some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-))) That's exactly my point Vaj. Your music experiment might not be my thing but it might sound great to someone else. IN fact what you suggested is found in Jazz all the time and some people eat it up. Music appreciation is subjective and does not help support a claim that some sounds are more life supporting than others when though inside your head. Even using the effect of music, an outside vibration through the air, with a though is bogus IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2008, at 4:49 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You > > are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in > > consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to > > your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the > > intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing > > sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. > > > Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to > replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions > with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. > Overdub some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-))) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a > lot > of yogic science. > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the > words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason > to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these > claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on > their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is > traditional. > > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt > to debase TM. > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't > buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice > relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that > surround the practice? > > There are differences between different > sounds and their effect > upon the human nervous system. > > Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't > believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than > religious tradition. .. All good points. However, the hypothesis has not been shown to be invalid. Thus, while skepticism is always good for unsubstantiated claims, it seems to me that its reasonable, healthy, and even "truthful" to remain open to the possibility of such. Even if its a low probability play. Otherwise it would appear to be dogmatism that "wild" stuff must a priori be false. Dogmatists against dogmatists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:40 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. Overdub some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-))) That's exactly my point Vaj. Your music experiment might not be my thing but it might sound great to someone else. IN fact what you suggested is found in Jazz all the time and some people eat it up. Music appreciation is subjective and does not help support a claim that some sounds are more life supporting than others when though inside your head. Even using the effect of music, an outside vibration through the air, with a though is bogus IMO. In terms of directly understanding the importance of mantra, one would have to have had the direct internal experience of the "arising of letters" (as it's called in Sanskrit) and the primordial experience of the arising of consciousness, since this is the origin of mantra. Then one directly understands how consciousness arises: it arises as light, sound and rays (of light). The sound component is "mantra". Then one understands directly it's importance and it's source. Until we have that experience though, we are relying on some species of faith. For those who trust a teacher enough, they can hopefully find a teacher who can transmit the light (visualization), sound (mantra) and rays (means of manifestation) aspects of consciousness and then through passed down experience (tradition), gain that same basic insight. In the latter case, one relies initially on faith but eventually arrives at a direct experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I accept that you have had experiences with > yogis that I haven't had that you value. I do not accept that you are > somehow looking at life in a more profound or special way than I am. > I appreciate that you are looking at it very differently, which is one > of the things I value in our communication. My own was just as > thoughtfully and carefully chosen. Frankly, mine seems much more random and driven by outside events than thoughtfully and carefully chosen -- despite how thoughtful my plans are or have been. Power on with your iron will. Thats awesome.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>
> >> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a
> > lot > of yogic science.
> >
> > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith.
>
> What you're not getting is that yogic "science" is not faith based at
> all: it is direct experience based.
Experienced based and the methods of science are not the same thing as
I'm sure you know. People could claim "Jesus science" because they
"experience" being saved but it doesn't mean they are using the
methods of science.
>
> You'd find it easier to understand this if you had a teacher who had
> experientially guided you through the various stages of meditation.
I'm not challenging the usefulness or the compelling nature of your
experience. I respect that you feel very convinced. That conviction
doesn't translate to other people as easily which is appropriate.
> Just because you were burned by a false guru is a bad reason to
> assume that other meditative teachers are not authentic. But it is a
> reason to be suspicious.
I would not sum up my mostly positive experiences with Maharishis as
being burned by a false guru.
>
> It appears to me that since you did not have the benefit of such
> training, you go to the opposite pole of experience: objective,
> verifiable materialistic experience and embrace that as your belief:
> faith in science. And clearly science is also faith based. We don't
> replicate every peer-reviewed we see published; we take it on faith
> that it's "good science". Similarly in terms of internal states, we
> rely on the authenticity of the teacher and the authenticity of his
> or her experience. The problem of course is, in either case, if you
> have a crooked scientist or a fraudulent yogi your very basis of
> inquiry is inherently flawed.
I agree with your critique of the application of the scientific method
by people. I don't agree that I have somehow become a cartoon person
who only believes in material things. Some of my most cherished
experiences are not material things. It is an unfair reduction of my
life.
>
> In the same way that external validation can take place, so can
> validation of internal states. I think you should be open to the fact
> that you may have been "burned" by a fraudulent internal scientist
> ("yogi"), but just as a fraudulent scientist does not invalidate all
> of scientific inquiry, nor does a fraudulent yogi invalidate all
> verifiable internal states.
I had great internal experiences with Maharishi's programs. I just
don't accept his explanation of what they mean. You may have a great
handle on your own internal mental states but I doubt you have one on
mine.
>
> Also similarly, when a faulty or fraudulent scientist attempts to
> present bad science, peers should be made aware of the error, so too
> should fraudulent yogis be exposed for their mountebankery. It's
> unfortunate that such persons exist, but they do.
I don't share your experience of other yogis who you feel are superior
to Maharishi in some way.
In your own example
> it's forced you to be averse to a whole dimension of inquiry, the
> internal ones. This is however a natural response to abuse. You've
> been wounded in some way and so you (or any of us) react accordingly.
I've just come to different conclusions than you have Vaj. No need to
demonize my position as being "a natural response to abuse." Claiming
to know that I have been wounded in some way is presumptuous. As I
have told many true believers of TM who tried to sum up my Maharishi
experience this way,it is incorrect. I had a great time with
Maharishis till the day I decided that I did not share his world view
anymore. I am not a victim and he didn't wound me.
Can you imagine how bogus it would be for me to sum up your current
position of having studied with "real yogis" as being in reaction to
your hurt of being burned by Maharishi, so you had to find someone to
replace him? It would not do justice to your path or your decisions.
Same with mine Vaj. I accept that you have had experiences with
yogis that I haven't had that you value. I do not accept that you are
somehow looking at life in a more profound or special way than I am.
I appreciate that you are looking at it very differently, which is one
of the things I value in our communication. My own was just as
thoughtfully and carefully chosen.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
"There are differences between different > sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system." Well, yeah! How do you think you hear and distinguish language. Different sounds have different effects on the ear drum, auditory nerves, and impulses sent to the brain. No exactly profound or new insights, it would seem. If however you are implying that some sounds (devoid of symbolic representation) promote health, wealth or wisdom, then that is a huge flying leap over and beyond the quote above. A parallel logic might be: "Different objects have a different feel that others and THEREFORE, by touching this thing, you will gain infinite happiness happiness." Sounds more like a good bar line.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 23, 2008, at 10:50 PM, new.morning wrote: I am heartened that, from what I have heard, that the D.Lama retires "dogma" in Tibetian B. scriptures that are found contrary to science. To me that signifies a view that past, pre-scientific ages found wonderful things, but also a lot of or at least some fluff. Those that are supported by science, or at least not contradicted, are kept. The others stuff is placed in the myth or extinct bin. This is a theme in his book The Universe in a Single Atom. A quite amazing read. I never realized the depth of his scientific understanding and how he sought out some of the greatest physicists of our time to learn from. Highly recommended. The unabridged audio version read by Richard Gere is also quite good. My wife who would never read such a book loved it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > Hugo wrote: > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > > > > > > It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > > > > so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > > > > from any other randomly chosen sound. > > > > > > > Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which > > > determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of > > > sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your > > fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't > > probably make > very good mantra. :) > > > > Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves > > nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the > > mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim > > supported by religious assertion IMO. > > Actually a researcher named Patricia Carrington claimed that she could > detect different brain wave patterns in her test subjects when they used > different mantras in her "clinically simulated meditation" technique modeled > after TM. > > I don't think she ever published that particular bit of research however. > > I've been told that different people show consistent EEG patterns for using the > same Sutra in different sessions, but that the pattern is different from > individual to individual. > > So it isn't a stretch to assume that different mantras might have some > different long-term effect. Its not a stretch. Its am interesting hypothesis. But should be seen as such -- unsubstantiated hypothesis -- not a priori TRUTH. Just because some pre-scientific guy wrote a book on "sound science" does not make it so, or true. I think some proponents' claims need a bit more humility and healthy skepticism. Such a book may provide an interesting theory to test -- beyond the simple hypothesis that dif sounds have dif effects. And not need to have blind faith in teachers or lineages. Some trust, yes. Blind faith, no. Until the hypotheses are born out with good research. Reports of consistent subjective experience from a particular school is good and interesting. However, there is so much room for cognitive bias and error, misinterpretation of experience, groupthink, confirmation bias, and small sample size skewed and random results (that appear real, but are not statistically) that some good dose of skepticism, and acceptance that such claims may be wrong -- or off base, is healthy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Om Yeah, in the progression of things humankind. Good observation New. Pert perspective to the context of things. John Hegalin or Deepak Chopra would be good examples of this next generation bringing inner wisdom forth after the generation of Yogananda or MMY or the Dali L. Generational progression. Is a story of Western Civilization. Progression of universal secular spirituality. Witness even x-ianity is in a re-alignment in the adoption of pop-culture meditational practices. Even some co-opting of meditation going on. Seems all denominations except may be the real hardcore evangels also promote cultivation of inner experience. Has been a developing thing going back mid-20th to even Thomas Merton within the Catholic & a number of unity type churches out west in the first half of the 20th century. General & on-going spill over spirituality in to christianity from all the hyper-tension science and spiritual promotion background otherwise. A New Earth from Tolle is most recent example of the progression. Off-World was the frank voice of this prgression here on FFL. (The list seems to have shot Off the messenger though in his case. Off the spiritual marter for his attempt at wistle-blowing.) I was in a mega-church last week down in Houston where in their calendar were workshops on the practices of "A New Earth", led by the lead church minister. All going towards a secular spirituality within a modern material world. Yours in science & best regards, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning ..> wrote: > > > I am heartened that, from what I have heard, that the D.Lama retires > "dogma" in Tibetian B. scriptures that are found contrary to science. > To me that signifies a view that past, pre-scientific ages found > wonderful things, but also a lot of or at least some fluff. Those that > are supported by science, or at least not contradicted, are kept. The > others stuff is placed in the myth or extinct bin. > > To me, thats a good recognition of past and present insights. And how > religions/ spiritual vies and practices evolve -- and hone in on truer > values. And not "this stuff form my traditions IS a priori true -- and > science must conform, or be bent, to confirm it. And it recognizes the > value of past traditions as finding good stuff -- and points towards > fruitful research hypotheses. > > I am hopeful, and see glimpses, from the next wave of spiritual > leaders who grew up in a scientific age, are better educated, some > with strong scientific experience and credentials. MMY's generation > was more on the cusp, some modern education and scientific > perspective. SBS was more pure tradition. Each new generation of > spiritual leaders, an adherents, if they follow the D. Lamas lead, > will unfold some wonderful spiritual (and scientific) knowledge. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > wrote: > > > > > > Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these > > ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that > > has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology > > and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - > > without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the > > enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of > > medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. > > Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a
lot > of yogic science.
I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith.
What you're not getting is that yogic "science" is not faith based at
all: it is direct experience based.
You'd find it easier to understand this if you had a teacher who had
experientially guided you through the various stages of meditation.
Just because you were burned by a false guru is a bad reason to
assume that other meditative teachers are not authentic. But it is a
reason to be suspicious.
It appears to me that since you did not have the benefit of such
training, you go to the opposite pole of experience: objective,
verifiable materialistic experience and embrace that as your belief:
faith in science. And clearly science is also faith based. We don't
replicate every peer-reviewed we see published; we take it on faith
that it's "good science". Similarly in terms of internal states, we
rely on the authenticity of the teacher and the authenticity of his
or her experience. The problem of course is, in either case, if you
have a crooked scientist or a fraudulent yogi your very basis of
inquiry is inherently flawed.
In the same way that external validation can take place, so can
validation of internal states. I think you should be open to the fact
that you may have been "burned" by a fraudulent internal scientist
("yogi"), but just as a fraudulent scientist does not invalidate all
of scientific inquiry, nor does a fraudulent yogi invalidate all
verifiable internal states.
Also similarly, when a faulty or fraudulent scientist attempts to
present bad science, peers should be made aware of the error, so too
should fraudulent yogis be exposed for their mountebankery. It's
unfortunate that such persons exist, but they do. In your own example
it's forced you to be averse to a whole dimension of inquiry, the
internal ones. This is however a natural response to abuse. You've
been wounded in some way and so you (or any of us) react accordingly.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 23, 2008, at 11:52 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: I know you are talking about sounds, and I really don't have an opinion about that. But as for something like sexual energy, I think there is a lot the eastern schools know, that the west is in the dark about. Such as? If the eastern guys know so much, how come their population problem is so much worse than in the west? Simply telling people to "just say no" isn't much of a solution. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 23, 2008, at 4:49 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. Please forward the studio recording of you recent album. I'd like to replace all the I-IV-V blues progressions with a I-IV-VII progessions with lot's of 9th and 13th chords and see how enjoyable it is. Overdub some Stockhausen stackings for color. Mmmm. :-)))
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > > > I think we are pre-adapted in that our brains > > > are so complex things or tehcniques, even drugs, > > > knock us off centre and because we have such a > > > clever illusion creator in our heads that disrupting > > > it can give us a glimpse of what we call heaven > > > for no other reason than it is so pleasant. > > > > I don't think its necessary to use the supernatural to explain the > > phenomenon of transcendence. By replacing thought with a meaningless > > sound we effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex, the center for > > rational thought. What is left is the primitive mind, effectively an > > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > > > > That's not the theory that Travis and company are going with these days. > > The "shutting down" isn't of some specific part of the cortext. Its of the thalamic > activity that serves to merge cortical activity with the raw sensory data > while still allowign the brain to remain alert. The various parts of the cortex > remain active, but they are no longer modified by sensory-feedback loops > as is the case with waking and dreaming states, and unlike sleeping, the > brain remains alert. So the activity that is going on is pure optimization > of the connections of the brain without distractions from the outside world OR > from the inner world of dreams and imagination. > > Lawson Good point Lawson. Stu's idea here is too pat. It's a nice idea that we are just returning to a more happy primitive state but is there any evidence? Maybe Stu's view is that of a culutural christian who would interpret it in terms of returning to a better time, a garden of Eden. Perhaps it's as unlikely as MMYs idea that we are experiencing more subtle and refined thoughts finally ending up with "pure" thought when to me it seems to be a pleasant kind of fugue state.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > I think we are pre-adapted in that our brains > > are so complex things or tehcniques, even drugs, > > knock us off centre and because we have such a > > clever illusion creator in our heads that disrupting > > it can give us a glimpse of what we call heaven > > for no other reason than it is so pleasant. > > I don't think its necessary to use the supernatural to explain the > phenomenon of transcendence. By replacing thought with a meaningless > sound we effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex, the center for > rational thought. What is left is the primitive mind, effectively an > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > > Drugs, orgasm, finding a zone, all shut down prefrontal cortex functions > to some degree. The relief and relaxation translates as a form of > bliss. > > > > > So it's either a big fluke or there is cosmic > > significance in how we seem to be born capable > > of experiencing what is, for us, a "holy" state > > of mind. > > Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these > ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that > has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology > and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - > without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the > enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of > medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. > Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. Then it is a fluke, all that means is that we evolved a latent ability to transcend bit of a stroke of luck I reckon. I too think that the earliest experiences were accounted for in mystical terms and the whole religious thing grew out of that. Every new seer adding to the cognitions that came before. > Maybe mantras have been in use so long > > we've evolved a sympathetic response to them. > > But that surely would take us way from india where > > the traditions are strongest. Sanskrit isn't the > > earliest language I think. > > Mantras as a cultural meme have not affected our evolution. How would that process work? I didn't say they affected our evolution but if people sitting around in caves somewhere were selected for preisthood or extended practise on the strength of their experiences in what everyone thought was communicating with God, then a system may have become more refined with some getting better results. I've always thought the difference between the quality of experience in people must be a genetic one. Some of us are more pre-adapted than others. I would like to know, though I never will as these things don't fossilise who came up with the first proper system because I think it unlikely that it arrived quickly so the vedas must have evolved. > > Does anyone know what the earliest known mantra > > technique is? > > I would guess that some dude stumbled upon it. Prolly playing the drums and chanting. That's maybe the origin but it's not the technique. That would be the refined system that people taught each other later on. Writer and inspired amateur archeologist Paul Devereux has an amazing theory that the iron age burial mounds that litter the european countryside were originally places where tribes gathered and used the special sonic properties of the shapes to create resonating frequencies that induce trance states. He has tested his ideas and produced a book that I found rather intersting: http://tinyurl.com/5lshob > >Difficult to know but even the > > geographic whereabouts of early spiritual cultures > > would be interesting. > > > Any or all primitive cultures have a "spiritual" dimension. As long as > humans question their own existence there is going to be a metaphysical > component to a culture. Its the natural outcome of having a big brain. > There is a natural conflict between our "monkey brain" and the outer and > most recent evolutionary part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex. From > that conflict arises all self reflection and confusion. > > Meditation offers ease to that conflict. Enjoy it, learn from it, stop > reading crap into the pleasant and beneficiary experience. Who do you think is reading crap into it? Me, or religious people? With me you'd be wide of the mark. I only ask questions so anyone with wider knowledge here can come up with new avenues to explore. I wouldn't say religions read crap into it either, it's just the way they have grown to think, interpreting one idea in the terms of the previous. Not crap, quite beautiful I think, bu tperhaps fundamentally innaccurate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > I think we are pre-adapted in that our brains > > are so complex things or tehcniques, even drugs, > > knock us off centre and because we have such a > > clever illusion creator in our heads that disrupting > > it can give us a glimpse of what we call heaven > > for no other reason than it is so pleasant. > > I don't think its necessary to use the supernatural to explain the > phenomenon of transcendence. By replacing thought with a meaningless > sound we effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex, the center for > rational thought. What is left is the primitive mind, effectively an > artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . > That's not the theory that Travis and company are going with these days. The "shutting down" isn't of some specific part of the cortext. Its of the thalamic activity that serves to merge cortical activity with the raw sensory data while still allowign the brain to remain alert. The various parts of the cortex remain active, but they are no longer modified by sensory-feedback loops as is the case with waking and dreaming states, and unlike sleeping, the brain remains alert. So the activity that is going on is pure optimization of the connections of the brain without distractions from the outside world OR from the inner world of dreams and imagination. Lawson > Drugs, orgasm, finding a zone, all shut down prefrontal cortex functions > to some degree. The relief and relaxation translates as a form of > bliss. > > > > > So it's either a big fluke or there is cosmic > > significance in how we seem to be born capable > > of experiencing what is, for us, a "holy" state > > of mind. > > Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these > ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that > has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology > and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - > without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the > enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of > medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. > Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. > > > Maybe mantras have been in use so long > > we've evolved a sympathetic response to them. > > But that surely would take us way from india where > > the traditions are strongest. Sanskrit isn't the > > earliest language I think. > > Mantras as a cultural meme have not affected our evolution. How would > that process work? > > > > Does anyone know what the earliest known mantra > > technique is? > > I would guess that some dude stumbled upon it. Prolly playing the drums > and chanting. > > >Difficult to know but even the > > geographic whereabouts of early spiritual cultures > > would be interesting. > > > Any or all primitive cultures have a "spiritual" dimension. As long as > humans question their own existence there is going to be a metaphysical > component to a culture. Its the natural outcome of having a big brain. > There is a natural conflict between our "monkey brain" and the outer and > most recent evolutionary part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex. From > that conflict arises all self reflection and confusion. > > Meditation offers ease to that conflict. Enjoy it, learn from it, stop > reading crap into the pleasant and beneficiary experience. > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" wrote: > > > > > > Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these > > ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that > > has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology > > and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - > > without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the > > enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of > > medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. > > Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. > > > > > > I am heartened that, from what I have heard, that the D.Lama retires > "dogma" in Tibetian B. scriptures that are found contrary to science. I'd like to know what he has scrapped, probably cosmological ideas. But how is he thinking about re-incarnation these days? > To me that signifies a view that past, pre-scientific ages found > wonderful things, but also a lot of or at least some fluff. Those that > are supported by science, or at least not contradicted, are kept. The > others stuff is placed in the myth or extinct bin. It's an excellent idea I think. The trouble with the TMO is that it holds the vedic age of enlightenment to be man's finest hour and so anything we do to stray from that takes us away from Gods will, or how we are "supposed" to be. If the TMO adopted the DLs attitude they would, for a start, clearly have to drop the stone-age mysoginists idea that that women are unclean at certain times. I could see a new age dawning then for sure. I don't think are up to it yet. > To me, thats a good recognition of past and present insights. And how > religions/ spiritual vies and practices evolve -- and hone in on truer > values. And not "this stuff form my traditions IS a priori true -- and > science must conform, or be bent, to confirm it. And it recognizes the > value of past traditions as finding good stuff -- and points towards > fruitful research hypotheses. > > I am hopeful, and see glimpses, from the next wave of spiritual > leaders who grew up in a scientific age, are better educated, some > with strong scientific experience and credentials. MMY's generation > was more on the cusp, some modern education and scientific > perspective. SBS was more pure tradition. Each new generation of > spiritual leaders, an adherents, if they follow the D. Lamas lead, > will unfold some wonderful spiritual (and scientific) knowledge. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > Hugo wrote: > > > Interesting article here: > > > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > > > > It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > > > so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > > > from any other randomly chosen sound. > > > > > Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which > > determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of > > sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your > fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't > probably make > very good mantra. :) > > Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves > nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the > mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim > supported by religious assertion IMO. Actually a researcher named Patricia Carrington claimed that she could detect different brain wave patterns in her test subjects when they used different mantras in her "clinically simulated meditation" technique modeled after TM. I don't think she ever published that particular bit of research however. I've been told that different people show consistent EEG patterns for using the same Sutra in different sessions, but that the pattern is different from individual to individual. So it isn't a stretch to assume that different mantras might have some different long-term effect. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bharitu: > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a > lot of yogic science. > > Curtis: > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the > words yogic and science together does not make it so. > > Lurk: > I know you are talking about sounds, and I really don't have an > opinion about that. But as for something like sexual energy, I > think there is a lot the eastern schools know, that the west is in > the dark about. That may also go for chakras, but I don't have as > much direct experience with that. > > As for the sexual energy part, various bramacharya primers and a > book by Elizibeth Haich covered some areas not covered by western > science. > > One interesting tidbit I came across was that during sexual arousal, > the nerve endings in the penis become heated, and when the orgasim > occurs, much of the pleasure arises from the semen coursing through > the penile shaft, soothing these inflamed nerve endings. Whether > it's true or not, it seems to make sense to me. At last an area of research we can all take part in! > As well, I don't know if western science understands that there is > some value in not indiscrimately expending semen. Certainly one > must abide the calls of nature, in whatever form they take, but > there is a science that pertains to subtler power of sexual energy, > which I belive is much better understood by the eastern schools. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
> Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot > of yogic science. I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is traditional. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt to debase TM. What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that surround the practice? There are differences between different > sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system. Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than religious tradition. Remember that Maharishi started teaching TM in India with 2 mantras right? If you are claiming that the TM mantras are assigned according to some profound criteria I have one response: The second advanced technique. This marketing claim doesn't hold up. It is sound > science. Oh reaaly. We aren't talking about audible music we are talking about a thought in your head. And shaming tactics in a discussion of ideas haven't worked on me since I was 10. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You > > are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in > > consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to > > your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the > > intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing > > sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. > I think you are wrong. So what about the extreme example you have to > give an extreme example to make people understand. After all these were > lectures for people not born in India. > > Consonance and dissonance are the fine science of music. They have an > effect upon the psyche of your audience. They are an example of > resonance which I originally talked about here. > > > > > > I'm sure there are all sorts of Nada Yoga books that makes such > > unsupported claims, that doesn't help either. This is a religious > > belief that I do not share. My only objection is that you and > > Maharishi pretend it has a scientific or even common sense basis,which > > it does not. It is an assertion on the level with "Believing in Jesus > > as your savior gives you eternal life." > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot > of yogic science. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt to debase TM. There are differences between different > sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system. It is sound > science. I would expect better from a fellow musician. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these > ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that > has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology > and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - > without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the > enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of > medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. > Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. > > I am heartened that, from what I have heard, that the D.Lama retires "dogma" in Tibetian B. scriptures that are found contrary to science. To me that signifies a view that past, pre-scientific ages found wonderful things, but also a lot of or at least some fluff. Those that are supported by science, or at least not contradicted, are kept. The others stuff is placed in the myth or extinct bin. To me, thats a good recognition of past and present insights. And how religions/ spiritual vies and practices evolve -- and hone in on truer values. And not "this stuff form my traditions IS a priori true -- and science must conform, or be bent, to confirm it. And it recognizes the value of past traditions as finding good stuff -- and points towards fruitful research hypotheses. I am hopeful, and see glimpses, from the next wave of spiritual leaders who grew up in a scientific age, are better educated, some with strong scientific experience and credentials. MMY's generation was more on the cusp, some modern education and scientific perspective. SBS was more pure tradition. Each new generation of spiritual leaders, an adherents, if they follow the D. Lamas lead, will unfold some wonderful spiritual (and scientific) knowledge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Interesting article here: > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > I think we are pre-adapted in that our brains > are so complex things or tehcniques, even drugs, > knock us off centre and because we have such a > clever illusion creator in our heads that disrupting > it can give us a glimpse of what we call heaven > for no other reason than it is so pleasant. I don't think its necessary to use the supernatural to explain the phenomenon of transcendence. By replacing thought with a meaningless sound we effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex, the center for rational thought. What is left is the primitive mind, effectively an artificial taste of pre-linguistic consciousness . Drugs, orgasm, finding a zone, all shut down prefrontal cortex functions to some degree. The relief and relaxation translates as a form of bliss. > > So it's either a big fluke or there is cosmic > significance in how we seem to be born capable > of experiencing what is, for us, a "holy" state > of mind. Its neither a fluke or does it have cosmic significance. Somehow these ancient mystics worked out a technique for altering consciousness that has benefits. Because of their ignorance of basic anatomy, psychology and such they went to big mythic explanations. Its to be expected - without the benfit of material knowledge we enjoy since the enlightenment these primitives had little or no understanding of medicine, nutrition, mathematics, physics, geography, or cosmology. Instead they look to the supernatural for explanations. Maybe mantras have been in use so long > we've evolved a sympathetic response to them. > But that surely would take us way from india where > the traditions are strongest. Sanskrit isn't the > earliest language I think. Mantras as a cultural meme have not affected our evolution. How would that process work? > > Does anyone know what the earliest known mantra > technique is? I would guess that some dude stumbled upon it. Prolly playing the drums and chanting. >Difficult to know but even the > geographic whereabouts of early spiritual cultures > would be interesting. > Any or all primitive cultures have a "spiritual" dimension. As long as humans question their own existence there is going to be a metaphysical component to a culture. Its the natural outcome of having a big brain. There is a natural conflict between our "monkey brain" and the outer and most recent evolutionary part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex. From that conflict arises all self reflection and confusion. Meditation offers ease to that conflict. Enjoy it, learn from it, stop reading crap into the pleasant and beneficiary experience. s.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
R.G. wrote: > What is nada yoga? The science or yoga of sound. Mantra shastra is based on it. > Where do you see dissonance and consonance? > You don't, you hear it. :) It is an example of a resonant effect that has an effect on the human psyche. > What the hell are you talking about? > The question you raised. :D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You > are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in > consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to > your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the > intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing > sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. I think you are wrong. So what about the extreme example you have to give an extreme example to make people understand. After all these were lectures for people not born in India. Consonance and dissonance are the fine science of music. They have an effect upon the psyche of your audience. They are an example of resonance which I originally talked about here. > > > I'm sure there are all sorts of Nada Yoga books that makes such > unsupported claims, that doesn't help either. This is a religious > belief that I do not share. My only objection is that you and > Maharishi pretend it has a scientific or even common sense basis,which > it does not. It is an assertion on the level with "Believing in Jesus > as your savior gives you eternal life." Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot of yogic science. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in your attempt to debase TM. There are differences between different sounds and their effect upon the human nervous system. It is sound science. I would expect better from a fellow musician.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> Hugo wrote: > >> > >>> Interesting article here: > >>> > >>> http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > >>> > >>> It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > >>> so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > >>> from any other randomly chosen sound. > >>> > >>> > >> Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which > >> determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of > >> sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your > >> > > fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't > > probably make > very good mantra. :) > > > > Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves > > nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the > > mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim > > supported by religious assertion IMO. > > > Nonsense. Go read up on nada yoga rather than make up your own folk > philosophy. And apparently you would think that there is no difference > between dissonance and consonance in music by your "folk philosophy." > :D :D :D > But that is the problem with both your examples,they are extreme. You are claiming that there is a huge difference between two notes in consonance but using the example of dissonance which does not apply to your claim. Using Raam or Govinda as a mantra does not have the intrinsic differences you are claiming. It is not like a soothing sound and finger nails on a blackboard, that is a bad example. I'm sure there are all sorts of Nada Yoga books that makes such unsupported claims, that doesn't help either. This is a religious belief that I do not share. My only objection is that you and Maharishi pretend it has a scientific or even common sense basis,which it does not. It is an assertion on the level with "Believing in Jesus as your savior gives you eternal life."
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> Hugo wrote: > >> > >>> Interesting article here: > >>> > >>> http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > >>> > >>> It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > >>> so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > >>> from any other randomly chosen sound. > >>> > >>> > >> Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which > >> determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of > >> sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your > >> > > fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't > > probably make > very good mantra. :) > > > > Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves > > nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the > > mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim > > supported by religious assertion IMO. > > > Nonsense. Go read up on nada yoga rather than make up your own folk > philosophy. And apparently you would think that there is no difference > between dissonance and consonance in music by your "folk philosophy." > :D :D :D > What is nada yoga? Where do you see dissonance and consonance? What the hell are you talking about?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hugo wrote: >> >>> Interesting article here: >>> >>> http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html >>> >>> It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be >>> so powerful, if indeed they are actually different >>> from any other randomly chosen sound. >>> >>> >> Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which >> determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of >> sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your >> > fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't > probably make > very good mantra. :) > > Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves > nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the > mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim > supported by religious assertion IMO. > Nonsense. Go read up on nada yoga rather than make up your own folk philosophy. And apparently you would think that there is no difference between dissonance and consonance in music by your "folk philosophy." :D :D :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
(snip) > > It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > > so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > > from any other randomly chosen sound. (snip) > > technique is? Difficult to know but even the > > geographic whereabouts of early spiritual (cultures > > would be interesting. (snip) According to Maharishi's teaching, the mantras came from the earliest time on earth, from Seers of the Vedas. The name/form concept is very important to understand in terms of the Vedas. In those early days, according to Maharishi, the atmosphere was pure enough, and the Sages attuned enough, that cognition of the sound or vibration was exactly equal to it's counterpart, whether physical or non-physical... So, it appears that Maharishi used the most universal mantras, because he believed in 'safety first'... The mantras used relate to the Goddess Saraswati, Godhead Rama, Vishnu manifestation Krishna, and perhaps a few others, which I don't know about. These mantras are called 'bija' mantras or 'seed' mantras... As they are the simplest sound/vibration of that aspect of nature. Maharishi seemed to relate all of these deities to aspects of The Laws of Nature... And, therefore, when one became attuned or vibrated with these aspects of nature, then one would become 'attuned to all the laws of nature' and 'sponaneous support of those laws of nature would arise to fulfill your every desire. Now, all of this information, and cogniton of the Vedas, according to Maharishi, happened long ago, and far away, on the 'time-line horizon'. So, much of the attempt of Maharishi, was to purify the earth enough, or at least a portion of it, so that one could transcend the chaos of the present day, and it's lack of attunement to nature, and to give people the experience of those early days of pure earth, pure intention, beautiful time, on earth. So, when he referred to a time on earth, where we could live heaven on earth. He was also referring to a past time, from where these teachings come. As far as finding a more 'powerful mantra' somewhere; Where would you look? The bija mantras that Maharishi chose, makes sense to me. They are the most universal; But more importantly... The use of the mantra, the effortless technique is the main difference between Maharishi's teaching, and the main thrust of the power of the teaching. The downfall of the movement, in retro-spect came when it strayed from effortlessness, naturalness and became contrived. When the movement became more concerned with power, than with peace. Politically that is the period we are coming through now. You can associate the change in the TM movement with the political change to Reagan in the 80's... This is when the movement and America lost it's 'innocence' and became possessed with other things. Corporatization of America, strange video games, and a sort of anti- counter culture movement, which gave rise to all kinds of extremes, in the TM movement, as well as a brittleness to American culture, which continues today. An inflexibility, stubborness and arrogance. Anyway, a few thoughts I was pondering today... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hugo wrote: > > Interesting article here: > > > > http://mysterytopia.com/2008/07/meditate-on-it.html > > > > It doesn't really explain how mantras came to be > > so powerful, if indeed they are actually different > > from any other randomly chosen sound. > > > Think resonance. It is the resonant qualities of the sound which > determine the effect and the basis for Nada Yoga (the science of > sound). Remember the TM lecture example of scratching your fingernails > on the blackboard as an example of a sound that wouldn't probably make > very good mantra. :) Proof by analogy is just lame. Using an extreme example proves nothing. There is no detectable difference between sounds like the mantra sounds and any other ordinary word. This is just an claim supported by religious assertion IMO. > > > > Does anyone know what the earliest known mantra > > technique is? Difficult to know but even the > > geographic whereabouts of early spiritual cultures > > would be interesting. > Lost in antiquity but probably not that important. Except if you really wanted to get to the bottom of what the claims are based on. Though the > originators are probably exploring other galaxies and domesticating > creatures they find on those planets with such techniques. ;-) No doubt. Probably in the Land of Hatchey Milatchy There's a wonderful place that you really should see Called the Land of Hatchy Milatchy All boys and girls love this place yes siree Called the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Peppermint candy and ice cream is free In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Soda pop fountains are under each tree In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Everyone rides on a-merry-go-round All made of sugar and spice Lollipops grow right out of the ground The moon's made of strawberry ice If you should run and you trip and you fall In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy The ground's made of rubber you bounce like a ball In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Oh you-play the whole day and you don't go to bed In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Mommies and Daddies are put there instead In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Hundreds of bunnies lay Easter eggs In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Ride on a pony with candy strip legs In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy Each day is always a big holiday Birthdays and parties galore Dollies and bicycles given away Whenever you walk in a store When I return then I never will leave The Land of Hatchy Milatchy If you want to go all you do is believe In the Land of Hatchy Milatchy >
