About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam: "It's pointless to continue the discussion. Ron is speaking one language and the rest of you another so neither can understand the other. The rational, logical, language oriented, left brain vs. the holistic, introspective, visual right brain of Ron — both constrained to verbal communication."

Seems like you are feeding a misconception.

Most definitely... 

To introspect requires rationality - one does not introspect via feelings....  further, to claim, by implication, that the rational is not nor can be holistic is rubbish - like introspection, it requires rationality to see and grasp the holistic nature of reality..... further still - man, like all living organisms, is by its nature an integrated being, thus there is no conflict as such between the parts of the brain, only enhancings in specific areas.....   and lastly, 'constrained to verbal communication' itself implies a poor means of  communication - when it is precisely verbal which most brings clarity to communication, when done with that objective in mind, which means clearly defined definitions and use of non-contradictory identificating....


Post 41

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's not a matter of speaking a "different language" or of  "right-brain" or "left brain" thinking. It's a matter of what is literally, irreducibly true. Again, A= A. To anyone capable of obviating the self-contraction, the moment-to-moment habit pattern of grasping and craving, of seeking and becoming, a Self-evident, Self-Existing, Self-Radiant Awareness stands forth as a Transcendental Being or Substratum or Irreducible Primary, upon which individual cognition (and therefore individual, or empirical, consciousness) reveals itself as a mere modification pattern.   

Empirical, or dualistic, consciousness without an object is indeed a contradiction in terms. It is, in fact, impossible to experience a state of consciousness without an object of consciousness. But Consciousness Itself, metempirical consciousness, if you will, is not a state of consciousness; it is pure, radiant Awareness (or "seeing" that is Being) that is always already prior to the subject-object dichotomy implicit in all conditional states of consciousness. In other words, "It" has an ontological status, not an epistemological one. 

Bill, based on my meditation experiences and what the great sages say, I do not agree with your assessment  that it is impossible for consciousness to survive death. Consciousness is not a mere brain phenomenon but is also inextricably linked to the spiritual heart center, just to the right of the center of the center of the chest, where mental impressions are stored as subconscious seed tendencies. This is the "seat of the soul," and supposedly, upon death, these tendencies, via the astral (or subtle) body, continue to exist independent of the gross physical form. 

I can tell you that when I "meditate" and am able to remain effortlessly present without seeking, I am spontaneously overwhelmed by an incredibly intense, palpable, even visceral Presence and an Energy pouring into me. The experience of this Presence-Power is blissful, and at times is is simply obvious to me that this Presence-Power is my True Self-Nature.

From an epistemological point of view, Transcendental Being-Awareness is a floating abstraction, but from ontological point of view,"It" is what one primally is.   

If anyone is interested in reading literature on radical Self-realization, I'd recommend starting with the following books:

Be As You Are: The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi--David Godman
I Am That: Talks With Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj--Maurice Frydman
The Zen Teching of Huang Po--John Blofeld
 


Post 42

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sigh ...

At times like this, I wish we still had the "Unsanction" feature on this site.


Post 43

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 6:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agree.....

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, based on my meditation experiences and what the great sages say, I do not agree with your assessment that it is impossible for consciousness to survive death. Consciousness is not a mere brain phenomenon but is also inextricably linked to the spiritual heart center, just to the right of the center of the center of the chest, where mental impressions are stored as subconscious seed tendencies.
Ronald, what reputable scientific studies confirm what you're saying? We know for a fact that memories and cognition depend on a properly functioning brain and that perception depends on physical sense organs. There is no evidence whatsoever that memories and cognition are stored in the center of the chest or next to the heart. All the evidence we have says they are located in the cerebral cortex. Also, what are "subconscious seed tendencies"?
This is the "seat of the soul," and supposedly, upon death, these tendencies, via the astral (or subtle) body, continue to exist independent of the gross physical form.
Again where is the scientific evidence for this? Also, what do you mean by "astral body." I know what the human body is. It is a biological organism which requires a certain course of action in order to remain alive. Is an "astral body" an organism? And if so, what are its survival requirements? Has any biologist ever examined it? And if it is not an organism, then what is it? Does an astral body have sense organs and a brain and nervous system? And if it does not, then how does it perceive reality, integrate its percepts into concepts, or possess any thoughts or memories? Also, do other mammals like dogs and cats have astral bodies? And what about other members of the animal kingdom like insects? Do butterflies have butterfly astral bodies that fly around after the butterflies are dead?

Not only does the notion of an astral body that continues to possess consciousness or to remain alive after death lack evidence; it also doesn't make sense biologically. How could such a body have emerged evolutionarily through a process of natural selection, if it were incorporeal and incorruptible? It would have no needs or values; nothing could serve or threaten its welfare, fulfill or frustrate its interests; it could have no interests and no goals. In short, it wouldn't be an autonomous or self-directed entity that had anything to gain or lose by its actions.

I find the notion of an astral body that survives death to have even less scientific basis than the idea that one's consciousness is located in the middle of one's chest.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/28, 9:47am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/28, 9:49am)


Post 45

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis Hardin wrote in Post 39 of this thread:
Fundamental premises inevitably win out. Paying lip service to earthly happiness while embracing a religion which exalts mysticism and self-sacrifice will yield the exact same result every time. These people are not our allies. Until and unless we irrevocably condemn the metaphysical and ethical underpinnings of Christianity and religion in general, we will continue to lose ground.


To the extent that we follow Robert's advice and "encourage Osteen’s influence among already-committed Christians" and "encourage reform Muslims who reject fundamentalist, militant Islam," we will end up in exactly the same place we find ourselves today.


I agree completely.


(Edited by Luke Setzer on 10/28, 6:04am)


Post 46

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, scientists didn't discover chi and the pathways through which very subtle non-physical energy moves in the body. Chinese mystics did, and they developed acupuncture to balance this energy and heal people. Likewise, scientists don't have a clue about kundalini, the adamantine force and flow of spiritually awakened consciousness. In fact, I have such intense kundalini energy coursing through me that I suffer from tetanic muscle spasms in the muscles along my spinal line. The more I relax and desist from thinking, the more intense the tetany. My heartbeat slows and my blood pressure drops as I just let go, but the tetanic spastic energy correspondingly increases. I've been hooked up to biofeedback machinery at Scripps Medical Research Center in La Jolla and at another doctor's clinic, and the doctors could not believe what their machinery told them. By my simply totally letting go, the needle measuring muscle tension went to the end of the gauge and pressed against the highest reading. I was literally off the charts in muscular tension while my vitals signs, like a heartbeat about 40 beats a minute, low-normal blood pressure, and very slow breathing, indicated profound psycho-physical relaxation. The doctors were utterly dumbfounded and had no explanation for my "condition." The secondary physical effects of this universal spiritual kundalini energy flowing through the body can perhaps be measured, but not the energy itself. It defies analysis and definition because according to the higher mystics, It Itself is the definitive all-subsuming Irreducible Primary or Existent of which the cosmos, all existents, are mere modifications. In other words, a single immeasurable Divine Being whose essence is pure Self-awareness and whose nature is pure Energy has emanated or "measured out" the manifest universe, a gradient, phenomenal reality that includes subtle energies and existents that science cannot--at least at the present time--detect or measure. This Divine Reality (or Awareness-Energy Itself) cannot be realized or known via conventional cognition because it cannot be objectified. "It" is always already the Transcendental Subject; therefore, it can only be realized by ontologically being, or coinciding, with "It." Consequently, it is impossible for science or the mind to know or comprehend "It." "It can only be apprehended or beheld--Self-ostensibly--via radical ontological identification, not cognition. To anyone possessing the yogic ability to remain effortlessly aware and free of seeking (for anything whatsoever, including "It") for protracted periods of time, the reality of this Divine Reality (or Radiant Transcendental Life Consciousness) is Self-evident. Because "It" is a metaphysical axiom, trying to describe the "experience" of "It" is like trying to describe sense experiences.

Post 47

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In many ways Osteen's ministry is the "preaching to the captives" aspect of Christianity.  If you follow the Presidential politics, much of Obama's and Edward's speech is couched in the transcendent nature of transforming the political and economic system.  Osteen's preaching is not quite as radical since he's from conservative Texas and probably owes the bankers a bundle of cash for the loans he received to create his super-church which is a converted NBA arena.

Post 48

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(continued) Bill, in higher mysticism, the goal is to not reincarnate.The goal is to be the Transcendental Self that is neither born nor dies. If one ceaselessly and one-pointedly seeks the source-location of his thoughts and feelings, as they arise moment-to-moment, his attention will, eventually, resolve itself in its root in the spiritual heart, just to the right of the center of the chest. At this point or "place," relative to the body, consciousness intersects the organism and instantaneously flows to the brain where the seed tendencies stored in the heart center manifest themselves as mind.  When one relentlessly enquires where the "I"-thought originates from, his mind will literally be sucked (by an intense, "magnetized" energy) into the heart-root, where the the enquiry will spontaneously cease and be replaced by an emissional Force-current to (and beyond) the brain  that literally outshines the arising pattern that is mind. Coincident with the regeneration of this spiritual current, called amrita nadi (immortal nerve), the ego-"I" is spontaneously superseded and subsumed (or outshined) by the Transendental "I," radiant, shining Being-Awareness.    

Supposedly, in un-Enlightened individuals, upon death, the seed-tendencies complex, or "atomic self," or "soul" leaves the heart via a nadi (or non-physical channel) other than the amrita nadi and relocates in a subtle realm befitting its karma, until it conjoins a physcial vehicle and reincarnates. Interestingly enough, studies have been done that claim that immediately upon death, the body suddenly loses measurable weight--leading to conjecture that the weight loss is due to the soul leaving the body. But I am not into speculative belief systems or faith-based consolation. I'm just conveying what the great sages have said on the matter.   

Consciousness feels and thinks. If you seek and find the irreducible root-source of all your thoughts and feelings, you will find yourself in, and as, consciousness radiating out of spiritual heart center. The experience will be the unqualified blissful non-dual Feeling of Being. The blissful Feeling of Being is not a conventional, conditioned emotion stemming from subconscious metaphysical value-judgement; it is simply the native "mood" of consciousness when it no longer contracted..    


Post 49

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I happened to catch Olsteen's sermon this morning, and found him perfectly delightful.  He's got a knack, that's for sure.  Soft-spoken, well humored, sincere, and a real optimist. The message I got was this:  Don't suffer!  Prosperity is good!  Don't be discouraged! You can have a great life!  I enjoyed it, myself.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Post 46 sounds like hibernation. I still don't understand why Ronald would use language and concepts to describe the indescribable.



Post 51

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's the point I was making in post #36.

Sam


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’ve noticed over the years that the only demonstrable effects from meditation are internal to the meditator.  They can change their hear rates, their blood pressure, etc.  This is interesting, and can be of some clinical value, but it’s hardly surprising.  The fact that a change in the mental state can have a physical effect is surely reasonable.  And many of these effects have been produced by hypnosis and biofeedback.

The jargon that has been created by the sages over the years grew out of the need to communicate the experiences of the meditators; to describe the feelings they experienced.  Personally, I think that all of the experiences can be explained by the physiological changes that take place when a certain state is achieved, either through meditation or some other means.  For example, the feeling of “being one with the universe” that is often described is probably due to the release of a particular chemical (or chemicals) in the brain; like a runner’s “high” or a “peak experience”.  Of course, even if the particular experience can be reproduced by means of a particular cocktail of chemicals in the brain, that wouldn’t prove that that is the explanation of the meditator’s experience.  But, it would be suggestive.

What I’d like to see is a person, who has achieved a higher state of consciousness, affecting his environment in some way.  Where are all the violations of the laws of nature that should be happening if some people have the ability to transcend the everyday and project their astral bodies beyond the event horizon, or some such nonsense?

Back in the 1970’s, I learned Transcendental Meditation.  That’s the technique created by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (you may remember him as the guru to the Beatles).  I found it to be interesting, and, when it “worked”, I would feel refreshed, like I had just awakened from a nap.  I ignored the metaphysics and cosmology that came along with it; it was just an easy way to get into a relaxed state.  But then the silliness began.  The Maharishi started talking about how continued meditation would take you through the many “houses”, some of which would give you supernatural powers, like invisibility and the ability to levitate.  They actually had conventions where, through the combined efforts of meditation by the attendees, they would try to get people to levitate.  What was actually happening was: people in the lotus position were “hopping” off the ground for a very short time (the time it takes something to return to the ground due to the effects of gravity!) due to an enhanced ability to flex their gluteus maximus muscles.  It was impressive, but not a violation of the laws of nature.

Where are all the supernatural powers?

Thanks,

Glenn


Post 53

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn, I too started my spiritual quest with TM--37 years ago. However, once I started studying the Indian, Chinese,and Tibetan spiritual traditions, I quickly realized how limited TM and the Maharishi were. Also, just like Christianity is loaded with hypocritical phonies like Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, and Oral Roberts, plenty of the Eastern "gurus," like the Maharishi, are also full of hokum. My approach has been to throw out the bath water, but not the baby. 

I have experienced incredible radiant energy emanating from the bodies of gurus, but I have never seen anyone demonstrate a supernatural power. True gurus, from time immemorial, have stigmatized supernatural powers, labeling the attainment of them as an impediment to spiritual enlightenment. But like you, I'd also like to see a guru or someone else demonstrate a supernatural power in a science laboratory.


Post 54

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More on the Buddhist one:
 
While on an airplane someday, I'd like to see a guru sitting on Cloud Nine!
That would be levitation up the yin-yang!  :-)  :-)
 
 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald,
I have experienced incredible radiant energy emanating from the bodies of gurus, but I have never seen anyone demonstrate a supernatural power.

And van Gogh saw things with a bright yellow halo, thought to be due to medicine he was prescribed, or his excessive imbibing of absinthe.  What you saw can be explained physiologically, without any need for the guru being a source of the energy.  This is the problem; all the phenomena described by mystics can be explained without invoking anything supernatural.  As long as it is necessary to be in an altered state to observe certain phenomena, then it remains, in Carlos Castaneda’s phrase, “special consensus reality”.

This is why some demonstration of supernatural powers would be helpful to convince others that going along the path to enlightenment is worth the time and effort.  And I’ve heard the argument you gave before: real gurus wouldn’t lower themselves to demonstrate their powers.  Well, you’d think that of all the people on the earth who are seeking enlightenment, there would be one who would succumb to the temptation to “show off”.

My approach has been to throw out the bath water, but not the baby.

Well, so far I’ve seen no evidence that there is a “baby”.

Thanks,

Glenn


Post 56

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn, I "see" or experience the "baby" on a regular basis--and I neither create nor imagine the experience.I simply "do" what the Buddha, Jesus and other mystics did: I remain effortlessly aware and allow the palpable, even violent, force of radiant energy (or Holy Spirit) that naturally accompanies this dispostion of conscious "non-doing" (or Holy Communion) to bless (or bliss) me.

In my case, it's a matter of how much shakti, or literal spiritual force, my body can handle until I get over-amped and my body goes into tetanic muscle spasms. But I'm hardly a dilettante. I've got the "baby" because I'm an "athlete of the spirit" who has devoted himself to
the quest for the Philosopher's Stone, Holy Grail, and Gordian (or Heart) Knot. I'm not fully "baked" or En-lightened, but I am a gifted and advanced meditator. 

Newberry, if I'd chosen a Zen and/or Taoist approach here rather than a Christian and Hindu Yogic one would that have made you happy? How about what Fredrick Franck wrote of  Zen?:

We have a belief which we need not believe in.  No dogma, no ritual, no mythology, no church , no holy book--what a relief!  

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is a forum devoted to the (rational) mind, so I didn't think the mind-blowing paradoxes and no-mind approach of Zen would cut it with guys into Rand's "reification of zero" argument.   

One final point: The highest forms of mysticism, like Zen and Dzogchen, reject any idea of a
supernatural mind or consciousness. In these traditions, Transcendental Awareness is termed ordinary mind or natural mind.  There are not two minds, the cognitive mind and the supra-cognitive, spiritual Mind, or Awareness. There is simply the ordinary mind or original mind, the undeformed, uncontracted mind in its its natural, unconditioned, inherently expansive "condition" prior to the arising of the discursive "monkey mind" that distorts and obscures the mind's True (or Buddha) Nature.           

(Edited by Ronald L. Gardner on 10/29, 5:52pm)


Post 57

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This Osteen guy's schtick sounds a hybrid of the 'self help' industry along with bits and pieces of Christianity (the lovey dovey stuff).  Pretty smart from a business standpoint!  He seems pretty benign to me.  Like many in his business, however, I have to wonder if he'll one day get caught with a hooker or something...

Post 58

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I, like Osteen, live in Texas, and for what it's worth, I just talked to a neighbor who has attended Osteen's church. She told me that she knows Osteen pretty well and, unlike Baker, Swaggert, Roberts, and others of their ilk, he's the real deal in terms of integrity.

Everywhere I go in this area--Horseshoe Bay/Marble Falls, just ourside of Austin--I see people reading Osteen's latest book. The local Walmart has stacks of them filling its book section. I tried to read it, but when I almost choked on the pablum, I had to abandon the effort. I've tried to turn a number of people in the area on to Rand's books, but when you're dealing with faith-based Texas yahoo-types, Rand's a tough sell.   


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.