|
Home > Archive > Yoga > June 2005 > Jnana and "guidence"
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 |
Jnana and "guidence"
|
|
| howdydave 2005-05-29, 8:54 am |
|
Howdy!
I'm curious about "jnana instruction." I've been stewing in my own
juices and developing some ideas. Let me know if you think I am correct
here:
1. It seems to me that jnana is different than any other type of yoga
in that "teaching" defeats the whole purpose. As a person studies and
learns s/he may need support and encouragement but anything along the
line of instruction (especially interpretation) would, in the long run,
hinder the development of the yogi.
3. "Guidence" may involve discussing insights with a person who is
above your level for confirmation of your interpretation.
4. "Guidence" may involve discussing the mechanics of meditation in
order to develop technique.
5. Any "what does this mean?" sort of inquiries to another person are
(or should be) discouraged.
BTW: These are all shots in the dark!
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| omjaram 2005-05-29, 10:53 pm |
| Yes!
Err, and no.
Well, it depends...
Jnana is about discriminating between what is true and what is not.
To the Jnani everyone is a teacher and no one is a teacher.
When the student is ready, the teacher shall appear.
God is the only teacher.
By the number, I would say:
1. Incorrect
2. Missing
3. Correct
4. Correct
5. Incorrect
Jnana is generally a self-directed pursuit but it can benefit from some
coaching and focus. The great thing is, because Jnana in the beginning
is an intellectual pursuit, the techniques and inquires needed lend
themselves to being conveyed in writing. Many of the great Jnanis
were/are great writers, so there is a ton of material to contemplate
and run through the Jnanic filter ;-) I suggest Yogananda, Vivekananda,
Rajneesh and Hittlemen, but there are many, many others.
As my Jnana practice progresses I find myself needing more and more the
discipline of Raja , the physical health, strength and control of
Hatha, the ardor of Bhakti and the non attachment of Karma yoga. I
know what the Truth is, so now I endeavor to bring this "vehicle" I
am using in alignment with what is true: There is only God. This
requires the other yogic disciplines and expressions as my
"vehicle" is kicking, screaming and resisting right down to the
DNA! :-( My "vehicle" doesn't believe the Borg, but I do :-)
Namaste
| |
| howdydave 2005-05-30, 9:01 am |
|
Howdy omjaram!
Thanks!
BTW: 2 is missing because my original question #2 was incorporated into
#1 and I forgot to change the following numbers.
My whole slant here is based on the hypothisis that somebody else can
not tell/show me what MY truth is.
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
|
"howdydave" <howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org> wrote in
message news:howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org...
>
>
> My whole slant here is based on the hypothisis that somebody else can
> not tell/show me what MY truth is.
>
jnana (or prajna in buddhism), cannot be taught. they have to arise
within the student to be of value.
when they are taught it is to encourage the students and to
aweken their search. in some cases the student may awaken
on reading/hearing it.
| |
| omjaram 2005-05-30, 11:53 am |
| Howdy,
> My whole slant here is based on the hypothesis that somebody else
> can not tell/show me what MY truth is.
They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So
it is with truth. There are no secrets. The truth is right in front of
us all the time. The only thing that can exists is true, all the rest
does not. So the only thing that can be known, seen or touched is
truth. A teacher can be useful and sometimes necessary to help us get
past ourselves (ignorance/fear) and point out what is real. Sometimes
"teachers" abuse and mislead us in order to show us what is not real.
In recovery they like to say, everyone is good (a teacher) for
something, even if it is to demonstrate what not to do :-) But a
teacher can not see for us, can not do the work for us, can not make us
drink. Truth doesn't change from one person to the next. There is no my
truth and your truth. Truth is (like reality) what is. What is
different or what constitutes yours or mine is the level of recognition
and/or acceptance of what is true.
So a teacher is good or useful if that's what I want or need. And
anyway as much as I try to avoid them they appear anyway :-) Personally
I have found pain, frustration, fear and hatred to be the best and most
appropriate/necessary teachers up until recently. While painful
reminders remain ever present coaches, I have over the last 15 or so
years been taking lessons from Love, kindness, patience, compassion,
fortitude, commitment, generosity, sympathy, gratitude, and the like.
Truth hasn't changed over the years but my drinking of it has. [Hey
that's cool, I've traded one kind of drinking for another. I like
that!] As you might suspect, I look forward to finding good teachers
now and I am not so nearly frightened of them as I once was (even the
painful ones).
Wisdom, Transcendence, Self Realization, Enlightenment, are degrees of
my acceptance in mind, body and soul of what is True. When this
awareness and acceptance is total and unequivocal then I am "There".
"There", of course, being where I am right now. Where I have always
have been and where I will always be. In and of and as whatever is
True.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-05-30, 11:53 am |
| anon wrote:
>
> "howdydave" <howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org> wrote in
> message news:howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org...
>
> jnana (or prajna in buddhism), cannot be taught. they have to arise
> within the student to be of value.
>
> when they are taught it is to encourage the students and to
> aweken their search. in some cases the student may awaken
> on reading/hearing it.
Some of it can be taught: Logic is very important and it can be useful
to read up on it, or even take some classes, if only to be able to
understand the current terminology.
Semantics is also difficult to develop all by yourself, as is critical
thinking in general (particularly nowadays, as it is often discouraged
by the forces of marketing and propaganda).
These disciplines are a selection of tools that can be used for the
actual work, I'm sure there may be others. Perhaps I'm like someone who
recommends a spade for digging, just because I'm unaware of the
existence of bulldozers and such things.
S.
| |
|
|
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:RSGme.25936$d5.176350@newsb.telia.net...
> anon wrote:
>
>
> Some of it can be taught: Logic is very important and it can be useful
> to read up on it, or even take some classes, if only to be able to
> understand the current terminology.
>
> Semantics is also difficult to develop all by yourself, as is critical
> thinking in general (particularly nowadays, as it is often discouraged
> by the forces of marketing and propaganda).
>
by no means am i devaluing teaching. it has its (important) place.
jnana is the emotional maturity which allows one to "transcend"
the self. teaching can awaken curiosity for it, but likely the
student has to work hard on herself to really get past the
self. some lucky ones may awaken on just being with the
teacher, or hearing the teaching. such cases are rare, and
are akin to the ripe fruit dropping.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-01, 9:03 am |
| Howdy!
I am currently reading:
Jnana-Yoga: The Way of Knowledge
By: Puligandla
When a person is talking about non-dualism, should an argument be discarded
due to faulty logic?
After all... logic (or any other dualistic discipline) is bound to break
down when talking about non-dualism.
In this case he is attempting to identify "objectless conciousness" with
"sunyata" (aka: "the void", "non-dual reality".)
His logic goes along the lines:
Since nothing can be said about "objectless concisousness"
AND
Since nothing can be said about "sunyata"
THEN
"Objectless conciousness" and "sunyata" must be identical.
To me, that is the same as saying:
A is not B
C is not B
Therefore A is C.
Which is clearly faulty logic.
Of course, this takes me to my other thread: "Why we can't talk about
reality"!
Dave
| |
| David 2005-06-01, 10:52 pm |
| Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I am currently reading:
>
> Jnana-Yoga: The Way of Knowledge
> By: Puligandla
>
> When a person is talking about non-dualism, should an argument be discarded
> due to faulty logic?
>
> After all... logic (or any other dualistic discipline) is bound to break
> down when talking about non-dualism.
>
> In this case he is attempting to identify "objectless conciousness" with
> "sunyata" (aka: "the void", "non-dual reality".)
>
> His logic goes along the lines:
>
> Since nothing can be said about "objectless concisousness"
> AND
> Since nothing can be said about "sunyata"
>
> THEN
>
> "Objectless conciousness" and "sunyata" must be identical.
>
> To me, that is the same as saying:
>
> A is not B
> C is not B
> Therefore A is C.
>
> Which is clearly faulty logic.
>
> Of course, this takes me to my other thread: "Why we can't talk about
> reality"!
>
> Dave
>
>
Hey Dave - check out this article ->
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Williamson0531.htm
It's the third in a series by Harold Williamson, an "independent scholar"
He suggests that we can indeed talk about reality, we just can't know it.
David
| |
| howdydave 2005-06-02, 8:53 am |
|
David Wrote:
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
>
> discarded
> break
> with
> about
>
> Hey Dave - check out this article ->
> http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Williamson0531.htm
>
> It's the third in a series by Harold Williamson, an "independent
> scholar"
>
> He suggests that we can indeed talk about reality, we just can't know
> it.
>
> David
Howdy David!
Williamson is talking to/about people who are all in agreement about
dualism.
If everybody present accepts that proposition than I would agree with
him.
HOWEVER... I am a non-dualist.
His: "We can talk about reality, we just can't know it"
v.
My: "We can know reality, we just can't talk about it"
Is pretty much the same mirror image that I see in cognizant
self-awareness:
I think therefore I am.
v.
I am therefore I think.
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
| howdydave wrote:
> David Wrote:
>
>
>
> Howdy David!
>
> Williamson is talking to/about people who are all in agreement about
> dualism.
>
> If everybody present accepts that proposition than I would agree with
> him.
>
> HOWEVER... I am a non-dualist.
>
> His: "We can talk about reality, we just can't know it"
> v.
> My: "We can know reality, we just can't talk about it"
>
> Is pretty much the same mirror image that I see in cognizant
> self-awareness:
>
> I think therefore I am.
> v.
> I am therefore I think.
>
>
Dave,
I read him a little differently - as trying to reach a non-dualistic
view from the dualism of science. Just thought it is interesting. Kind
of like that recent film "What the Bleep do we Know" which is also a
science orientation looking for a non-dualism.
There is no need for right and wrong in these things, as long as they
exercise or minds.
David
| |
|
| On 2005-06-02 04:42:38 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> howdydave wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I read him a little differently - as trying to reach a non-dualistic
> view from the dualism of science. Just thought it is interesting. Kind
> of like that recent film "What the Bleep do we Know" which is also a
> science orientation looking for a non-dualism.
I did not like this film. It presented many highly speculative
theories as if they were facts. It presented questionable psychics
with the credibility physicists.
>
> There is no need for right and wrong in these things, as long as they
> exercise or minds.
>
> David
My take on Williamson is that he is a bit suspicious about the concept
of progress. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that there
is a real entity called progress. Be it natural selection of species,
child development, social movements, science and the like, there is a
similar structure to progress. Movement from level to level. Each
level leading to greater diversity, complexity and unity. Each level
subsumes the next. Quantum mechanics does not invalidate Newton, it
brings Newton to a new paradigm.
"At the beginning of the 20th century it was difficult to obtain any
scientific information, but at the beginning of the 21st century the
difficulty now lies in how to react to an unprecedented accumulation of
highly specialized scientific information" -Williamson
In the post modern world, science makes great discoveries. The
workings of the body, communications, space, and earth. We are
confronted by greater diversity and complexity in science. But also
notice that there is a certain unity. We are beginning to see a
non-linear, holistic, "flow" in scientific discoveries. This is not a
difficulty as much as we are learning the limits of the empirical
method. It is the sign that we are ready to jump to a new paradigm.
We come closer to understanding knowledge. And we are beginning to
fully understand what knowledge is. We are learning that logos is not
enough. Mythos is a component of human knowledge as well.
--
~Stu
| |
| Shahin Malekpour 2005-06-03, 9:00 am |
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005060221231916807%Nospam@towelcom...
> On 2005-06-02 04:42:38 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
> I did not like this film. It presented many highly speculative theories
> as if they were facts. It presented questionable psychics with the
> credibility physicists.
>
> My take on Williamson is that he is a bit suspicious about the concept of
> progress. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that there is a
> real entity called progress. Be it natural selection of species, child
> development, social movements, science and the like, there is a similar
> structure to progress. Movement from level to level. Each level leading
> to greater diversity, complexity and unity. Each level subsumes the next.
> Quantum mechanics does not invalidate Newton, it brings Newton to a new
> paradigm.
>
> "At the beginning of the 20th century it was difficult to obtain any
> scientific information, but at the beginning of the 21st century the
> difficulty now lies in how to react to an unprecedented accumulation of
> highly specialized scientific information" -Williamson
>
> In the post modern world, science makes great discoveries. The workings
> of the body, communications, space, and earth. We are confronted by
> greater diversity and complexity in science. But also notice that there
> is a certain unity. We are beginning to see a non-linear, holistic,
> "flow" in scientific discoveries. This is not a difficulty as much as we
> are learning the limits of the empirical method. It is the sign that we
> are ready to jump to a new paradigm.
>
> We come closer to understanding knowledge. And we are beginning to fully
> understand what knowledge is. We are learning that logos is not enough.
> Mythos is a component of human knowledge as well.
> --
> ~Stu
>
Hi Stu,
I think one of the most promising cosmological frameworks of the
20th century was the development of the General Systems Theory.
The structure and methodology of GST first grew out of Dialectical
Materialism, but went beyond ruling Stalinist dogma that thwarted
its development and alienated its original thinkers like Akoff. Akoff's
mantle was later claimed by Ludwig fon Bertalanffy, an Austrian
biologist. GST is today widely influential essentially by osmosis and,
has been absorbed into many advanced scientific frameworks from
biology and physics to economics, politics, defence, and management .
This framework as an open theoretical perspective has an unusual
capacity for application and development.
Of the most fascinating concepts in GST is "homeostasis", which acts
at various levels of material structures. I have pasted below links from
"Principia Cybernetica" which explains this critical natural phenomenon,
relevant to Yoga as a system of voluntary harmonisation of behaviour:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HOMEOSTA.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html
In my searches I also stumbled across an interesting source on "Kabalistic
Theory" which makes rather perceptive use of GST in its theoretical
challenge of reconciling "soul" and "matter", which is the essence of a
series of stimulating recent discussions in alt.yoga ... not surprisingly 
I Particularly liked the view on a structured "Evolution"/"Involution"
interplay as a dynamic systems characteristic; fat lot of help though it
might do for resolving "dualism".
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/sci..._perception.htm
Just some "thoughts" ;) ... Regards,
Shahin
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-02 04:42:38 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> I did not like this film. It presented many highly speculative theories
> as if they were facts. It presented questionable psychics with the
> credibility physicists.
>
>
>
> My take on Williamson is that he is a bit suspicious about the concept
> of progress. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that there
> is a real entity called progress. Be it natural selection of species,
> child development, social movements, science and the like, there is a
> similar structure to progress. Movement from level to level. Each
> level leading to greater diversity, complexity and unity. Each level
> subsumes the next. Quantum mechanics does not invalidate Newton, it
> brings Newton to a new paradigm.
>
> "At the beginning of the 20th century it was difficult to obtain any
> scientific information, but at the beginning of the 21st century the
> difficulty now lies in how to react to an unprecedented accumulation of
> highly specialized scientific information" -Williamson
>
> In the post modern world, science makes great discoveries. The workings
> of the body, communications, space, and earth. We are confronted by
> greater diversity and complexity in science. But also notice that there
> is a certain unity. We are beginning to see a non-linear, holistic,
> "flow" in scientific discoveries. This is not a difficulty as much as
> we are learning the limits of the empirical method. It is the sign that
> we are ready to jump to a new paradigm.
>
> We come closer to understanding knowledge. And we are beginning to
> fully understand what knowledge is. We are learning that logos is not
> enough. Mythos is a component of human knowledge as well.
Doesn't progress suggest a telos? Where are we going? And how do we
measure progress if that telos is something we don't understand?
| |
|
| On 2005-06-03 15:30:38 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
>
>
> Doesn't progress suggest a telos?
Yes.
> Where are we going?
This is too general of question. It needs to be broken down. Where
are we going as an individual? As a society? As animals? As a part
of the physical cosmos?
In each of these, there is an apparent movement towards greater
diversity, complexity, and integration.
> And how do we measure progress if that telos is something we don't understand?
We may not understand the ultimate end. In fact we can not see the
ultimate end. Aristotle wanted desperately to name the ultimate end.
We can only make assumptions that the end is the culmination of
diversity, complexity and integration - complete unity.
We can measure the progress through observation. How has the physical
world developed? The Periodic Table of Elements suggests a sort of
progress as simple hydrogen atoms give way to complex atoms and
eventually molecules. Has human culture developed? As an individual
have we developed? Do you sense an evolution of consciousness in your
own life?
Is this a life force/a creative intelligence, or accident?
The reoccurrence of gestalt in the world makes me doubt this is accident.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| On 2005-06-03 04:42:03 -0700, "Shahin Malekpour"
<s.malekpour@ntlworld.com> said:
>
>
> "Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
> news:2005060221231916807%Nospam@towelcom...
>
> Hi Stu,
>
> I think one of the most promising cosmological frameworks of the
> 20th century was the development of the General Systems Theory.
> The structure and methodology of GST first grew out of Dialectical
> Materialism, but went beyond ruling Stalinist dogma that thwarted
> its development and alienated its original thinkers like Akoff. Akoff's
> mantle was later claimed by Ludwig fon Bertalanffy, an Austrian
> biologist. GST is today widely influential essentially by osmosis and,
> has been absorbed into many advanced scientific frameworks from
> biology and physics to economics, politics, defence, and management .
> This framework as an open theoretical perspective has an unusual
> capacity for application and development.
>
> Of the most fascinating concepts in GST is "homeostasis", which acts
> at various levels of material structures. I have pasted below links from
> "Principia Cybernetica" which explains this critical natural phenomenon,
> relevant to Yoga as a system of voluntary harmonisation of behaviour:
>
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HOMEOSTA.html
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html
>
> In my searches I also stumbled across an interesting source on "Kabalistic
> Theory" which makes rather perceptive use of GST in its theoretical
> challenge of reconciling "soul" and "matter", which is the essence of a
> series of stimulating recent discussions in alt.yoga ... not surprisingly
> I Particularly liked the view on a structured "Evolution"/"Involution"
> interplay as a dynamic systems characteristic; fat lot of help though it
> might do for resolving "dualism".
>
> http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/sci..._perception.htm
Just
>
> some "thoughts" ;) ... Regards,
> Shahin
Yes! Since the enlightenment there has been too much emphasis on
empirical science. The traditional empirical model gives credence to
understanding of the lowest order of the world, the fleshy physical
part. The result has been a dominant "Scientism" that does not allow
for experiences apart from the fleshy physical world.
GST gives a framework to bring rational analysis to the observations
made internally.
Unfortunately, your links did not work - but I am familiar with GST.
--
~Stu
| |
|
|
Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-03 15:30:38 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> This is too general of question. It needs to be broken down. Where are
> we going as an individual? As a society? As animals? As a part of the
> physical cosmos?
>
> In each of these, there is an apparent movement towards greater
> diversity, complexity, and integration.
>
>
>
> We may not understand the ultimate end. In fact we can not see the
> ultimate end. Aristotle wanted desperately to name the ultimate end.
> We can only make assumptions that the end is the culmination of
> diversity, complexity and integration - complete unity.
>
> We can measure the progress through observation. How has the physical
> world developed? The Periodic Table of Elements suggests a sort of
> progress as simple hydrogen atoms give way to complex atoms and
> eventually molecules. Has human culture developed? As an individual
> have we developed? Do you sense an evolution of consciousness in your
> own life?
>
> Is this a life force/a creative intelligence, or accident?
>
> The reoccurrence of gestalt in the world makes me doubt this is accident.
Okay, Stu, you're scaring me now. Are you going all Teilhard on us? ;-)
| |
|
| On 2005-06-06 15:15:56 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
> Okay, Stu, you're scaring me now. Are you going all Teilhard on us? ;-)
Yea, guilty as charged. Maybe Teilhard without the reliance on dualism
though. It may be wishful fantasy on my part, but the alternative is
materialism. Aside from the usual idealist arguments, materialism when
put to practical use doesn't seem to work. Practical materialism leads
to totalitarianism (at its worst, at its best we end up with stodgy
scientists), and inevitably many people practicing religion
underground. Speaks of the insistence of the nooshere in culture.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-06 15:15:56 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> Yea, guilty as charged. Maybe Teilhard without the reliance on dualism
> though. It may be wishful fantasy on my part, but the alternative is
> materialism. Aside from the usual idealist arguments, materialism when
> put to practical use doesn't seem to work. Practical materialism leads
> to totalitarianism (at its worst, at its best we end up with stodgy
> scientists), and inevitably many people practicing religion
> underground. Speaks of the insistence of the nooshere in culture.
Your assesment of materialism is spot on. I'm just not convinced that
those are the only choices (materialism and idealism), though I will
confess to being a bit of an idealist myself. Still, I continue to seek
out that "middle way."
| |
|
| On 2005-06-07 15:04:15 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
>
> Your assesment of materialism is spot on. I'm just not convinced that
> those are the only choices (materialism and idealism), though I will
> confess to being a bit of an idealist myself. Still, I continue to seek
> out that "middle way."
Not sure there is a middle way between idealism and materialism. From
my point of view, they have a holographic relationship. Idealism
includes materialism (though materialism doesn't include idealism).
Idealism is the result of a post-rational consciousness. As an
idealist I don't discount that phenomena have physical roots. This is
the brilliance of Kant. He adds the second layer of noumonema without
disturbing the empirical world.
A way to test this theory would be to train devoted materialists in
spiritual practices like meditation, and see if they change their tune
after some time with post-rational yogic experiences.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-07 15:04:15 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> Not sure there is a middle way between idealism and materialism. From
> my point of view, they have a holographic relationship. Idealism
> includes materialism (though materialism doesn't include idealism).
> Idealism is the result of a post-rational consciousness. As an idealist
> I don't discount that phenomena have physical roots. This is the
> brilliance of Kant. He adds the second layer of noumonema without
> disturbing the empirical world.
>
> A way to test this theory would be to train devoted materialists in
> spiritual practices like meditation, and see if they change their tune
> after some time with post-rational yogic experiences.
>
I see the middle way in interpretation. Rather than an attempting to
find some location from "outside" from which to observe, something both
materialism and idealism do, interpretation exchews starting points and
seeks to understand "knowledge" within the context of the world as we
talk about it. In essence, it assumes that these are all stories that we
tell ourselves and seeks to make sense out of them only as they relate
to one another. I'm no Kant expert, I've read some and found it
unconvincing so I didn't seek out more. Seemed to me that his noumena
was no more than Plato's true forms.
I think we should use your test on a large number of materialists, not
only to test your theory (as I'm sure it will change them), but to save
the rest of us from their absurdities. Now, if you could please describe
a similar "test" to use on those that are convinced that their own
personal brand of religion should be forced upon everyone else.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-10 14:22:01 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
> I see the middle way in interpretation. Rather than an attempting to
> find some location from "outside" from which to observe, something both
> materialism and idealism do, interpretation exchews starting points and
> seeks to understand "knowledge" within the context of the world as we
> talk about it.
Today in yoga class I was hanging upside down with my eyes closed. And
I began to notice that the experience was being taken in from the
mind's eye. The mind's eye can be focused on the input from the senses
(empiricism/materialism) or it can be focused within. Both directions
yield knowledge.
The materialist ignores the knowledge received from the the inward
focus. The idealist does not limit their acquisition of knowledge.
Idealism and materialism may both be stories, but one story contains
the next, like nested Russian Dolls. At each level of consciousness
one moves to great complexity, variation and integration. Pure
consciousness supposes, pure unity. I can not conceive of a level
beyond unity consciousness, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
> In essence, it assumes that these are all stories that we tell
> ourselves and seeks to make sense out of them only as they relate to
> one another. I'm no Kant expert, I've read some and found it
> unconvincing so I didn't seek out more. Seemed to me that his noumena
> was no more than Plato's true forms.
Plato's true forms are always intelligible. The intellect can master
them. Kant's noumena are trans-intelligible. Any attempt to find
logos in noumena results in absurd contradictions. Brahman is the
world.
This is an important distinction. Unfortunately for Kant he did not
have access to yogic techniques that result in common noumena
experiences. He was severely limited to the pre-rational dualistic
magical world of Christianity. But at least he managed to "bracket
off" and validate the internal experience.
>
> I think we should use your test on a large number of materialists, not
> only to test your theory (as I'm sure it will change them), but to save
> the rest of us from their absurdities. Now, if you could please
> describe a similar "test" to use on those that are convinced that their
> own personal brand of religion should be forced upon everyone else.
The pre-rational dualistic magical religions have certain traits. The
require "faith" in a supernatural king/father figure. In order to
maintain this belief there needs to be group support. The group will
require constant reinforcement of their beliefs. The next level of
development, rationality, appears absurd to those at the pre-rational
level. Convincing others that their brand of religion is THE brand is
not only a trait but a requirement of this level of consciousness. A
fear of intellectuality, the trait of the next stage, is also inherent.
Hence the behavior we are seeing on the part of Evangelicals and
Islamic fundamentalists, today.
It is interesting to go back to Piaget, and look at this level in terms
of child development. There is a pre-rational stage children go
through where the other (mother or father) gain magical mythic
proportions. This is generally connected to superhero myths like
Hercules or The Mighty Morphen Power Rangers. Eventually in modern
societies, the children move through this stage to a rational/cognative
stage. However anthropologists have suggested that in earlier
societies, child development stops at the magical/mythical stage. I
suspect that the proselytizing we see today by about 30% of our society
reflects a sub-culture of those still clinging to a pre-rational stage.
Fortunately, the mean of our culture is firmly rooted in the rational
stage. This is the stage supported by our institutions. And a small
number of individuals are venturing into post-rational stages. Though
there is little institutional support.
I imagine back in Plato's day, venturing into the rational stage was
quite risky. In fact Socrates could attest to that risk.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-10 14:22:01 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> Today in yoga class I was hanging upside down with my eyes closed. And
> I began to notice that the experience was being taken in from the mind's
> eye. The mind's eye can be focused on the input from the senses
> (empiricism/materialism) or it can be focused within. Both directions
> yield knowledge.
>
> The materialist ignores the knowledge received from the the inward
> focus. The idealist does not limit their acquisition of knowledge.
> Idealism and materialism may both be stories, but one story contains the
> next, like nested Russian Dolls. At each level of consciousness one
> moves to great complexity, variation and integration. Pure
> consciousness supposes, pure unity. I can not conceive of a level
> beyond unity consciousness, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
Your system of levels of consciousness, the nesting of one within the
next is truly elegant. But when it comes right down to it, I have
difficulty seeing how it is any less a matter of belief than either
religiousity or science. Measured from within it is self validating,
just as the others are. Yet measure it from within those others and it
may indeed look foolish. And finding some abstract, outside your system
measurement by which to compare them, well that you can't conceive of
your fourth "level," that you of it should tell you something.
>
>
>
> Plato's true forms are always intelligible. The intellect can master
> them. Kant's noumena are trans-intelligible. Any attempt to find logos
> in noumena results in absurd contradictions. Brahman is the world.
>
> This is an important distinction. Unfortunately for Kant he did not
> have access to yogic techniques that result in common noumena
> experiences. He was severely limited to the pre-rational dualistic
> magical world of Christianity. But at least he managed to "bracket off"
> and validate the internal experience.
>
Perhaps someday I will give Mr. Kant another chance. But I don't find
the reality is knowable, but not understandable approach (or is it the
otherway around) very enlightening. Sounds a bit like a free-mason
approach to the world.
>
>
> The pre-rational dualistic magical religions have certain traits. The
> require "faith" in a supernatural king/father figure. In order to
> maintain this belief there needs to be group support. The group will
> require constant reinforcement of their beliefs. The next level of
> development, rationality, appears absurd to those at the pre-rational
> level. Convincing others that their brand of religion is THE brand is
> not only a trait but a requirement of this level of consciousness. A
> fear of intellectuality, the trait of the next stage, is also inherent.
> Hence the behavior we are seeing on the part of Evangelicals and Islamic
> fundamentalists, today.
>
> It is interesting to go back to Piaget, and look at this level in terms
> of child development. There is a pre-rational stage children go through
> where the other (mother or father) gain magical mythic proportions.
> This is generally connected to superhero myths like Hercules or The
> Mighty Morphen Power Rangers. Eventually in modern societies, the
> children move through this stage to a rational/cognative stage. However
> anthropologists have suggested that in earlier societies, child
> development stops at the magical/mythical stage. I suspect that the
> proselytizing we see today by about 30% of our society reflects a
> sub-culture of those still clinging to a pre-rational stage.
> Fortunately, the mean of our culture is firmly rooted in the rational
> stage. This is the stage supported by our institutions. And a small
> number of individuals are venturing into post-rational stages. Though
> there is little institutional support.
>
> I imagine back in Plato's day, venturing into the rational stage was
> quite risky. In fact Socrates could attest to that risk.
>
It is not the "level" of consciousness that I object to. And as you know
by now, my take on it is that any sort of thought system requires belief
in that thought system (yes, even mine). Anthropologists no longer view
such systems of development as explanatory, much of anthropology has
moved in an interpretive direction (and I won't even discuss Mr. Piaget,
for whom I have little to no respect). It is not even proselytizing that
I object to, we all do that, even you and I. No, what I find
objectionable is the complete lack of tolerance. (And I should add here,
it is an intolerance that is not a part of their religion to begin
with). The religious right here in the U.S. has even taken it a step
further, not only are they being intolerant, but they are attempting to
cast the rejection of their intolerance as intolerance of them.
I saw an interesting turn of words the other day that I think the rest
of us need to start using. They consider themselves to be a "faith-based
community." Perhaps the rest of us should start casting ourselves as
members of a "reality-based community." Sure, it's only marketing, but
that's what the religious right has started doing. The rest of us need
to start fighting back before we live in a society where thoughts like
your's and mine lead to results like Plato's (for Plato didn't die for
what he believed, he died for what he did not believe).
| |
|
| On 2005-06-12 04:11:04 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
[snip]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Your system of levels of consciousness, the nesting of one within the
> next is truly elegant.
It is not so much my theory but a model that appears in nature. It is
the structure of Darwin's theory, the model of human developmental
theory, the shape of the Periodic Chart of Elements, Recent
neurolinguistic research is showing memory works holographically.
> But when it comes right down to it, I have difficulty seeing how it is
> any less a matter of belief than either religiousity or science.
> Measured from within it is self validating, just as the others are. Yet
> measure it from within those others and it may indeed look foolish. And
> finding some abstract, outside your system measurement by which to
> compare them, well that you can't conceive of your fourth "level," that
> you of it should tell you something.
True that. Its all about what myths do we subscribe to. Mythos and
Logos - it makes the world go 'round.
As for the 4th level, I have no problem of understanding this level.
This would be the level of consciousness we find ourselves in
meditation. Subject and Object merge, post rational. It the Unity
Consciousness level that has me stymied. This level is reported by
Yogi's but it is outside my experience. Consciousness in the world of
the senses merged with the 4th level. Yikes!
I only subscribe to this myth as a way to communicate with others my
experiences of the post rational. Aside from that it is just words.
Hogwash in the scheme of things.
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps someday I will give Mr. Kant another chance. But I don't find
> the reality is knowable, but not understandable approach (or is it the
> otherway around) very enlightening. Sounds a bit like a free-mason
> approach to the world.
Save yourself the time. You are doing fine without decoding is his theory.
>
>
>
> It is not the "level" of consciousness that I object to. And as you
> know by now, my take on it is that any sort of thought system requires
> belief in that thought system (yes, even mine). Anthropologists no
> longer view such systems of development as explanatory, much of
> anthropology has moved in an interpretive direction (and I won't even
> discuss Mr. Piaget, for whom I have little to no respect).
Sorry to hear that. I had the fortune of spending some time in France
in the 70's studying psychology with one of Piaget's partners, Jacque
Lacan. I alway go back to those heady café days. Sipping cappuccinos
and talking structuralism after screening of avant-garde films. Those
Montparnasse cafés were the usenet of their day.
> It is not even proselytizing that I object to, we all do that, even
> you and I. No, what I find objectionable is the complete lack of
> tolerance. (And I should add here, it is an intolerance that is not a
> part of their religion to begin with). The religious right here in the
> U.S. has even taken it a step further, not only are they being
> intolerant, but they are attempting to cast the rejection of their
> intolerance as intolerance of them.
Last months Harpers had a terrific article on a MegaChurch in Colorado
Springs. Scary.
>
> I saw an interesting turn of words the other day that I think the rest
> of us need to start using. They consider themselves to be a
> "faith-based community." Perhaps the rest of us should start casting
> ourselves as members of a "reality-based community." Sure, it's only
> marketing, but that's what the religious right has started doing. The
> rest of us need to start fighting back before we live in a society
> where thoughts like your's and mine lead to results like Plato's (for
> Plato didn't die for what he believed, he died for what he did not
> believe).
I was working as a volunteer Boy Scout leader. I got involved in some
of the advanced training. The upper level of the Scouts is run by LDS.
It was really discouraging. Their is no line of communication to
these people. This is where I truly began to understand that there are
indeed different levels of consciousness.
The Scout Law is effectively Aristotle's Virtues. Yet somehow these
people think it divinely inspired.
I do believe that rationality will win out eventually. That is what
this country was founded on.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-12 04:11:04 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> It is not so much my theory but a model that appears in nature. It is
> the structure of Darwin's theory, the model of human developmental
> theory, the shape of the Periodic Chart of Elements, Recent
> neurolinguistic research is showing memory works holographically.
<smile>
>
>
>
>
> True that. Its all about what myths do we subscribe to. Mythos and
> Logos - it makes the world go 'round.
>
> As for the 4th level, I have no problem of understanding this level.
> This would be the level of consciousness we find ourselves in
> meditation. Subject and Object merge, post rational. It the Unity
> Consciousness level that has me stymied. This level is reported by
> Yogi's but it is outside my experience. Consciousness in the world of
> the senses merged with the 4th level. Yikes!
But you described just such an experience having occured in your yoga
class while hanging up side down (only you weren't concerned with a
fourth level then).
>
> I only subscribe to this myth as a way to communicate with others my
> experiences of the post rational. Aside from that it is just words.
> Hogwash in the scheme of things.
>
The problem arises when we begin to believe that the "hogwash" is truth,
or in other words, describes a reality seperate from our experience. To
my mind it's sort of like that "unity consciousness," its not out there
somewhere to be experienced,it is already here. You experience it all
the time, just don't notice it as such. It's not a mystical experience,
its an everday experience. At least, that's my take on it.
>
>
>
> Save yourself the time. You are doing fine without decoding is his theory.
>
>
>
> Sorry to hear that. I had the fortune of spending some time in France
> in the 70's studying psychology with one of Piaget's partners, Jacque
> Lacan. I alway go back to those heady café days. Sipping cappuccinos
> and talking structuralism after screening of avant-garde films. Those
> Montparnasse cafés were the usenet of their day.
You've mentioned this time once before. I'd love to hear more. I've read
some Lacan and enjoyed what I read. But the only structuralist I have
much time for is Levi-Strauss and that's primarily because of his
descriptive abilities.
>
>
>
> Last months Harpers had a terrific article on a MegaChurch in Colorado
> Springs. Scary.
>
>
>
> I was working as a volunteer Boy Scout leader. I got involved in some
> of the advanced training. The upper level of the Scouts is run by LDS.
> It was really discouraging. Their is no line of communication to these
> people. This is where I truly began to understand that there are indeed
> different levels of consciousness.
>
> The Scout Law is effectively Aristotle's Virtues. Yet somehow these
> people think it divinely inspired.
>
> I do believe that rationality will win out eventually. That is what
> this country was founded on.
I do hope you are correct. But I am concerned that there is not much
reaction against this nut cases. Our media has capitulated, the
capitalists seem to have no problem with them and are using them to hide
behind, there appears to be no progressive movement to speak of, even
the anti-enlistment campaigns seem to be selfishly motivated. Still, I
hope you are correct.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-13 04:27:12 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
Snip[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> But you described just such an experience having occured in your yoga
> class while hanging up side down (only you weren't concerned with a
> fourth level then).
>
>
> The problem arises when we begin to believe that the "hogwash" is
> truth, or in other words, describes a reality seperate from our
> experience. To my mind it's sort of like that "unity consciousness,"
> its not out there somewhere to be experienced,it is already here. You
> experience it all the time, just don't notice it as such. It's not a
> mystical experience, its an everday experience. At least, that's my
> take on it.
I understand this, and have glimpses at the possibility. However, for
the most part unity consciousness for me only exists theoretically.
(snip)
>
> You've mentioned this time once before. I'd love to hear more. I've
> read some Lacan and enjoyed what I read. But the only structuralist I
> have much time for is Levi-Strauss and that's primarily because of his
> descriptive abilities.
Along with going to Lacan's lectures, I was taking a class in his
theories by a practicing psychiatrist. It was all part of a graduate
film studies program in Paris run by the university of California
system. They put together excellent classes for us to take. At the
time there was much film theory based on Lacan and the structuralists.
This was back in 1975 or so. I can't comment to much on what I got out
of this study, but to say that it pokes its head out when the dialog
moves towards the philosophical.
I began meditating regularly a few years before Paris, so naturally I
found myself filtering the French intellectual systems through my
practice.
I do remember my year in Paris as a pivotal experience in my life. My
return to the US had me finish up at the university of Wisconsin in
Comm Arts, I then went to the San Francisco Art institute and got a
Master of Fine Arts degree. There was a natural progression from the
Parisian café scene to the bohemian scene in North Beach.
>
>
>
> I do hope you are correct. But I am concerned that there is not much
> reaction against this nut cases. Our media has capitulated, the
> capitalists seem to have no problem with them and are using them to
> hide behind, there appears to be no progressive movement to speak of,
> even the anti-enlistment campaigns seem to be selfishly motivated.
> Still, I hope you are correct.
Harper's also had a great article on the history of "Free Market"
capitalism, and how its had its roots with the rise of puritanical
xtians in 19th century England. Highly suggest seeking out the May 05
and reading it. For whatever reason they published the third and least
interesting article on this subject on their WEB site.
http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html
--
~Stu
|
| |
|
|