|
Home > Archive > Yoga > May 2005 > Meditation Technique for ALL
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Meditation Technique for ALL
|
|
| Isreom-Ishov Satguruyogiprabhu 2005-05-06, 9:20 am |
| Sit in a chair with your spine straight and your feet flat on the floor.
Place your tongue on the roof of your mouth touching the back of your top
teeth. Focus your eyes on your minds eye. Place both hands on your heart
chakra hand on top of hand - take deep diaphragmatic breaths relaxing on the
exhale. Recite slowly in the mind the word love or the tone Aum or your
favorite name of the Divine over and over again. Do this when you first get
up for 20 minutes and again before you go to bed.
Do this not for self, do this for the highest greatest good God of all. Do
this with devotion of by and for the Divine. Do this for 21 days with
sincerity and during that time period I will visit you with one of my light
, etheric bodies and give you an initiation into the 4 main yoga's, along
with a tune up, of your 4 lower bodies.
Lots of good fortune to you.
You may call me Jnanda or Guruji.
Namaste'
Forever in service,
Namaste'
ISREOM ISHOV
SATGURUYOGIPRABHU
Jnanda Moksha Brahmananda
| |
|
| Are you crazy? Who do you think you are? If you think all others are
stups, Think over your good self. Thre is no one on this earth having
eteric body. AS there is nothing as ETHER,see simple physics and learn
that there is no ether anymore.
With compassion,
Puma
| |
|
| On 2005-05-09 12:33:14 -0700, "puma" <puma@dowse.com> said:
> Are you crazy? Who do you think you are? If you think all others are
> stups, Think over your good self. Thre is no one on this earth having
> eteric body. AS there is nothing as ETHER,see simple physics and learn
> that there is no ether anymore.
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
Science is very capable of describing the superficial world of
phenomena. Science is very capable of breaking the physical world into
smaller and smaller elements. But does this reduction in the end
really describe the meaning of human existence?
Kant teaches about noumena. The experiences that science can not
explain because the experiences are outside the ability of the five
senses to discern. The noumena will always be beyond our grasp.
Just because the ether has been discredited as an element does that
mean it does not exist. Might we have subtle bodies that work outside
the superficial realm? Can there not be profound internal experiences
that work outside the laws of physics? Have you ever dreamed? Can you
see a pure thought?
--
~Stu
| |
| David 2005-05-18, 11:40 am |
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-09 12:33:14 -0700, "puma" <puma@dowse.com> said:
>
>
>
> Science is very capable of describing the superficial world of
> phenomena. Science is very capable of breaking the physical world into
> smaller and smaller elements. But does this reduction in the end really
> describe the meaning of human existence?
>
> Kant teaches about noumena. The experiences that science can not
> explain because the experiences are outside the ability of the five
> senses to discern. The noumena will always be beyond our grasp.
>
> Just because the ether has been discredited as an element does that mean
> it does not exist. Might we have subtle bodies that work outside the
> superficial realm? Can there not be profound internal experiences that
> work outside the laws of physics? Have you ever dreamed? Can you see a
> pure thought?
One could also go in the other direction and I feel it would also be
true. Just because science suggests that something exists, should we
trust that as the final word on "reality"? Isn't science itself a
product of mind? Indeed, aren't all attempts to make sense out of
sensual experiences, to order our perceptions, a product of mind? So at
least in our attempts to have knowledge, mind comes first and this must
make us question what that "reality" consists of, for our minds change
all the time. Ether used to be "it," now it is sub atomic particles and
forces. Both are conceptions created by mind.
| |
|
|
Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-09 12:33:14 -0700, "puma" <puma@dowse.com> said:
>
are[vbcol=seagreen]
having[vbcol=seagreen]
learn[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Science is very capable of describing the superficial world of
> phenomena. Science is very capable of breaking the physical world
into
> smaller and smaller elements. But does this reduction in the end
> really describe the meaning of human existence?
>
> Kant teaches about noumena. The experiences that science can not
> explain because the experiences are outside the ability of the five
> senses to discern. The noumena will always be beyond our grasp.
>
> Just because the ether has been discredited as an element does that
> mean it does not exist. Might we have subtle bodies that work
outside
> the superficial realm? Can there not be profound internal
experiences
> that work outside the laws of physics? Have you ever dreamed? Can
you
> see a pure thought?
> --
> ~Stu
Dear Stu:
Hello there,
Science is far ahead from the five senses... Science can tell us many
different phenomena that our senses can not...
Michelson and Moorly have shown by their famous experiment that there
is nothing like ETHER...
You do not need to believe when science tell you something because it
shows its proof also...
Yes there are people like Edison who has seen and proved his pure
thought.
Let us be at the science side not the beliefs... Beliefs can take us to
a deremers word and at the end we all be unhappy if we go by it///
With compassion,
Puma
| |
|
| David,
Have you read the words of ISREOM-ISHOV? He pretends being a holy
person ,he will be shown to you if you do 21 days such ,such silly
things...He will give you inistiation on 4 yogas!!!!!!! Woow!!!! Look
at this crazy guy..He thinks he is a superhuman.....
If you believe him. That is right what you deem....
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| David 2005-05-18, 11:40 am |
| puma wrote:
> David,
>
> Have you read the words of ISREOM-ISHOV? He pretends being a holy
> person ,he will be shown to you if you do 21 days such ,such silly
> things...He will give you inistiation on 4 yogas!!!!!!! Woow!!!! Look
> at this crazy guy..He thinks he is a superhuman.....
>
> If you believe him. That is right what you deem....
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
Puma,
I was responding more to Stu's discussion than to the original. Like you
I share a certain cynicism about such "follow this plan" sort of
spiritualities (especially those on the installment plan). However, I'm
also wary of suggesting someone follow "my" truth in place of the one I
am critiquing. As you usually do, the best is to encourage people to
find truth within.
David
| |
|
| On 2005-05-11 13:08:17 -0700, "puma" <puma@dowse.com> said:
>
> Stu wrote:
> are
> having
> learn
> into
> outside
> experiences
> you
>
> Dear Stu:
>
>
> Hello there,
>
> Science is far ahead from the five senses... Science can tell us many
> different phenomena that our senses can not...
>
> Michelson and Moorly have shown by their famous experiment that there
> is nothing like ETHER...
>
> You do not need to believe when science tell you something because it
> shows its proof also...
Yes, We have established that for the most part the 17th and 18th
century scientists were correct when they concluded that the method of
science is a fine method to uncover knowledge of worldly phenomena. We
can experiment, find measurements and catalogue every possible
experience the senses has to offer. In some cases we can reduce nature
to easy to understand formulae. Like Force = Mass x Acceleration.
And with our finely tuned instruments we can experience worlds we could
not with our five senses, like the dark side of the moon, or the
interior of a cell.
>
>
> Yes there are people like Edison who has seen and proved his pure
> thought.
>
> Let us be at the science side not the beliefs... Beliefs can take us to
> a deremers word and at the end we all be unhappy if we go by it///
I think when you talk of beliefs, you are making the distinction
between what we know by experimentation and logic and what we know
through intuition. Is this correct?
Is it possible that if we to live only by strict rationality and logic
we too would be destined towards unhappiness?
There needs to be a balance between the insane world of the dreamer and
the mechanical world of the scientist.
Isn't that part of the aim of the art and science of yoga?
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
But how do we apply empiricism (science) to what makes us distinctly
human. What of love, passion, or the transcendental experience where
we feel at one in the world?
There is no question that rationality is an important aspect of
humanity, however the contemplative world, beyond the limited scope of
language, is an important realm. Without it we would be mere robots.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| On 2005-05-11 04:25:30 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
>
> One could also go in the other direction and I feel it would also be
> true. Just because science suggests that something exists, should we
> trust that as the final word on "reality"? Isn't science itself a
> product of mind? Indeed, aren't all attempts to make sense out of
> sensual experiences, to order our perceptions, a product of mind? So at
> least in our attempts to have knowledge, mind comes first and this must
> make us question what that "reality" consists of, for our minds change
> all the time. Ether used to be "it," now it is sub atomic particles and
> forces. Both are conceptions created by mind.
I would like to add to that, the influence of minds. Science is not
just a product of mind but it is the product of many minds. Science
is, like language, a mechanism of society. Very often scientific
results substantiate a particular social feature. Look how "new agers"
have embraced quantum mechanics because it serves a particular eastern
world view.
It may be that the discovery that the earth was no longer the center of
the solar system came about just as the society was moving away from a
feudal form with the church at its center.
I don't think it is a coincidence that in this highly materialistic
world, scientific method is used as a way to sell everything from
shaving cream to liposuction.
--
~Stu
| |
|
|
"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1115842097.868723.68420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Michelson and Moorly have shown by their famous experiment that there
> is nothing like ETHER...
>
actually, now physicists are trying to revive the theory of ether.
| |
|
| On 2005-05-11 04:25:30 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
>
> One could also go in the other direction and I feel it would also be
> true. Just because science suggests that something exists, should we
> trust that as the final word on "reality"? Isn't science itself a
> product of mind? Indeed, aren't all attempts to make sense out of
> sensual experiences, to order our perceptions, a product of mind? So at
> least in our attempts to have knowledge, mind comes first and this must
> make us question what that "reality" consists of, for our minds change
> all the time. Ether used to be "it," now it is sub atomic particles and
> forces. Both are conceptions created by mind.
I would like to add to that, the influence of minds. Science is not
just a product of mind but it is the product of many minds. Science
is, like language, a mechanism of society. Very often scientific
results substantiate a particular social feature. Look how "new agers"
have embraced quantum mechanics because it serves a particular eastern
world view.
It may be that the discovery that the earth was no longer the center of
the solar system came about just as the society was moving away from a
feudal form with the church at its center.
I don't think it is a coincidence that in this highly materialistic
world, scientific method is used as a way to sell everything from
shaving cream to liposuction.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| David,
Hi there, you are right, but this my way of encouraging people finding
the truth within.If a spark flashes, fire might start otherwise,
we are lost in a muddy area.
Thanking you once more,
With compassion,
Puma
|
| |
|
|