Sunday, May 31, 2009
Things everyone must do...
1. Take a 10-30 minute walk every day, and while you walk, smile. It is the ultimate anti-depressant.
2. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day. Talk to God (or to your higher power or meditate) about what is going on in your life. Buy a lock if you have to.
3. When you wake up in the morning complete the following statement, ’ My purpose is to__________ today. I am thankful for______________ ’
4. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants and eat less food that is manufactured in plants.
5. Drink green tea and plenty of water. Eat blueberries, wild Alaskan salmon, broccoli, almonds & walnuts.
6. Try to make at least three people smile each day.
7. Don’t waste your precious energy on gossip, energy vampires, issues of the past, negative thoughts or things you cannot control Instead invest your energy in the positive present moment.
8. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a college kid with a maxed out charge card.
9. Life is not fair, but it is still good.
10. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
11. Don ’ t take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
12. You are not so important that you have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
13. Make peace with your past so it will not spoil the present.
14. Don ’ t compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
15. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
16. Frame every so-called disaster with these words: ’ In five years, will this matter? ’
17. Forgive everyone for everything.
18. What other people think of you is none of your business.
19. GOD (depending on your beliefs) heals everything - but you have to ask Him (translate to your religion).
20. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
21. Your job will not take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch!!!
22. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
23. Each night, before you go to bed complete the following statements: I am thankful for__________. Today I accomplished_________.
24. Remember that you are too blessed to be stressed.
25. When you are feeling down, start listing your many blessings. You will be smiling before you know it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Quotes by UG Krishnamurti
thought
"The living organism and thought are two different things. Thought cannot conceive of the possibility of anything happening outside the field of time. I don't want to discuss time in a metaphysical sense. By time I mean yesterday, tomorrow and the day after. The instrument which has produced tremendous results in this area is unable to solve problems in the area of living. We use this instrument to achieve material results. We also apply the same thing to achieve our so-called spiritual goals."
"This instrument thought which we have been using to understand has not helped us to understand anything except that every time we are using it we are sharpening it. Someone asked me, 'What is Philosophy? How does it help me in my day-to-day existence?' It doesn't help you in any way except that it sharpens the intellect. It doesn't in any way help you to understand life. If that thought is not the instrument and if there is no other instrument then is there anything to understand?"
"We don't seem to realize that it is thought that is separating us from the totality of things. "
"The only way for anyone who is interested in finding out what this is all about is to watch how this separation is occurring, how you are separating yourself from the things that are happening around you and inside you. Actually there is no difference between the outside and the inside. It is thought that creates the frontiers and tells us that this is the inside and something else is the outside. If you tell yourself that you are happy, miserable, or bored, you have already separated yourself from that particular sensation that is there inside you." "The only way it can maintain its continuity is through the constant demand to know. If you don't know what you are looking at, the 'you' as you know yourself, the 'you' as you experience yourself, is going to come to an end. That is death. That is the only death and there is no other death."
" (Questioner:) So we keep coming back to this point that thought itself seems to be the enemy, the interloper... " (UG:) "It is our enemy. Thought is a protective mechanism. It is interested in protecting itself at the expense of the living organism."
" (Q:) You are saying that thought is the thing that causes people's worries... " (UG:)"It's thought that is creating all our problems and it is not the instrument to help us solve the problems created by itself."
"Unfortunately, the servant, which is the thought structure that is there, has taken possession of the house. But he can no longer control and run the household. So he must be dislodged. It is in this sense that I use the term 'natural state', without any connotation of spirituality or enlightenment."
morality
"When once you are—I don't like to use the word, freed from, or are not trapped in—this duality of right and wrong, good and bad, you can never do anything bad. As long as you are caught up in wanting to do only good, you will always do bad. Because the good you seek is only in the future. You will be good some other time and until then you remain a bad person. So, the so-called insane have given up and we are doing them the greatest harm and disservice by pushing them to fit themselves into this framework of ours which is rotten. I don't just say it is rotten but it is."
"I don't fight society. I am not even interested in changing it. The demand to bring about a change in myself isn't there any more. So, the demand to change this framework or the world at large isn't there. It is not that I am indifferent to the suffering man. I suffer with the suffering man and am happy with the happy man."
"I will never break the laws, no matter how ridiculous the laws are."
"There is no need to change this world at all; and there is no need to change yourself either."
"There is no meaning in and no purpose to suffering."
Scientists and Mystics
This paper presented by Dr. J.S.R.L.Narayana Moorty at the Krishnamurti Centennial Conference held at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, U.S.A., May 18-21, 1995, discusses some issues commonly raised in regard to the relationship between science and spirituality. In particular, the issue of the apparent similarities (or symmetry) between statements made by scientists and those made by mystics concerning the unity of existence (or of the universe). The author argues that the positions of the scientists and those of the mystics are not comparable, and proposes that the very premise that the mystic or the scientist has any sort of experience or knowledge of a state of unity, especially when seen in the light of the teachings of U.G. Krishnamurti, a contemporary teacher, is questionable.
Extracts:
Religion, of which spirituality is considered an essential trait, has in the past come into conflict with some of the theories and conclusions of science. Three major areas of conflict are: the time of creation, the manner of creation, and the constitution of the human being, particularly with regard to the question of whether there is anything in the human being, such as the soul, which survives the death of his physical body.
Ren‚e Weber, in her Dialogues with Sages and Scientists, maintains that both the scientist and the mystic seek unity in the universe or reality. "A parallel principle derives both science and mysticism -- the assumption that unity lies at the heart of our world and that it can be discovered and experienced by man." (Weber, p.13). While the scientist, according to her, approaches the question of unity through his scientific method and reasoning, the mystic approaches it through self-knowledge. While the methodology of science is quantitative and mathematical, the methodology of mysticism is meditational. (Weber, p.8). Weber admits, however, that there are other differences between science and mysticism: scientific method is cognitive and analytical; it studies the universe piecemeal. It claims its results to be objective and value free. (Weber, p.8). The mystic's unity is experiential -- it is union with the infinite (for instance, the "Thou art that" of the Upanishads). (Weber, p.9). While the scientist seeks to unify, he leaves himself out of this "equation" (Weber, p.10), in spite of the fact that in quantum mechanics the observer and the observed are "admitted to constitute a unit." According to Weber, the scientific community has not yet caught up with the full meaning of this declaration. (Weber, p.10).
Particularly in physics, the search for the `singularity' before time, as in the physical theories of Stephen Hawking, is an expression of this search for unity, just as the `super- implicate' order in David Bohm is another such expression. Professor Bohm claims that the quantum mechanical field theory implies some such notion as his super-implicate order. (In Weber, pp.34, 37). In his view, the relationship between what he calls the super-implicate order(1) and what he calls the implicate order is similar to the relationship between consciousness and matter.
Bohm clearly gives the idea that thought is incapable of grasping the ultimate origins of the universe, because previous scientists (like Poincar‚ or Einstein) didn't know what the source of their mathematics was, and therefore they called it mysterious. (In Weber p.147). It is Bohm's view that, inasmuch as he is studying the mathematical order of the universe, and inasmuch as mathematics is meaning and meaning is a property of consciousness, the scientist is ultimately, like the mystic, studying consciousness. "In some ways the pure mathematician is going into one of the aspects of consciousness." (In Weber, p.149). He says that although the scientist is "inspired by the experience of matter, nevertheless once it has entered consciousness he is trying to find something that goes on in consciousness which has an order of its own." (In Weber, p.149).
Hawking also thinks that "time and space and everything else are really in us. They are just mathematical models that we've made to describe the universe." Consequently, Hawking says that the distinction between studying nature and merely our models of nature is not a meaningful distinction.
According to Weber, the mystic, on the other hand, is engaged in "splitting his self- centered ego and the three-dimensional thinker that sustains it."(Weber, p.11). He, "in changing himself, changes the subtle matter within in some radical way for which no scientific explanation is at present adequate." (Weber, p.12). For the mystic, a theory cannot comprehend reality, for it puts limits on the unbounded. (Weber, p.14). The questions of the why's and the wherefore's of the universe lead, for the mystic, to the idea that the universe originates in consciousness.(Weber, p.15). "Subtle matter gives birth to and governs dense matter, but all matter forms a continuum. ... At its most subtle and inward point (if there is such an end point) matter and consciousness become indistinguishable." (Weber, p.15). Professor Weber thinks that this subtle matter can be "approached through non-ordinary states of consciousness" as experienced, for instance, in Tibetan Buddhism (Weber, p. 15). "A traditional meditation in Tibetan Buddhism enables the meditator to experience the unity of space, matter, and consciousness." (Weber, p.16).
, the physicist is merely studying himself (i..e, the mathematical models in his mind, rather than reality itself), it is clear that in some fashion the study does not and in principle cannot include the scientists themselves. It's not just that theoretical physics, as Weber claims, has not yet somehow come to understand the implications of quantum mechanics. It is not even that, as the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum mechanics states, we do not actually study reality, but only our interpretation of reality. It's just that no matter what theory a physicist arrives at, it must, as a theory, preclude the person of the scientist as part of the unity. A theory is a thought, and as a thought, it must preclude the thinker. It is precisely this separation that the mystic is trying to transcend.
It is true that in some sense both the scientist and the mystic do seek unity. Perhaps the very search for understanding is born out of a sense of separation which is caused by one's thought processes, and which presents, in one's consciousness, the clear separation between oneself as the observer and the world (including oneself, inasmuch as one is aware of oneself as a being in the world) as the observed . But there is a fundamental difference in the approaches: the scientist is not satisfied with a mere `experience' of unity, whatever that experience may consist of, but seeks a unification in theory. The mystic, on the contrary, is sure that no theory will ever result in a unifying experience. Furthermore, when the mystic does `experience' such a unity, the quest for unity will no longer be there. Not only the quest is gone, but the seeker is gone in a very fundamental sense. It is in this context that U.G.'s teachings have relevance.
U.G. says there cannot be any `experience' of unity or union with reality. According to him, a claim to any experience presupposes not only an awareness of the experience as an object, but also a recognition of it as an experience. And these conditions are enough to destroy any possibility of there being a unity, let alone an experience of unity, because any recognition implies a duality or division between the subject and the object. How can there be an experience of unity where there is a subject left out of the object of experience?
Is it possible that there is indeed an experience of unity, but when the experience occurs, there is no awareness of it, yet it could be recalled as such sometime later? U.G. denies that such a possibility exists, because, in order for there to be a memory of an experience, there has to have been an initial experience (or knowledge) with an awareness which implies a subject-object distinction. In other words, he denies that it is possible to have an experience without a subject- object distinction; were it possible to have such an experience, he denies that we could have a memory of it. When there is no such distinction (as should be the case with the so-called experience of unity), there can be no recognition of that state, and therefore the state does not constitute an experience, and for that reason there can be no memory of it later.
Nevertheless, when U.G. describes his own process of `death'(4) or a`thoughtless' state, he admits that there must be in that state some awareness of what was going on, or he would not be able to talk about it. This admission leads us to wonder whether, after all, U.G. is not concurring with scientists like Sheldrake and Bohm in their assertion that consciousness is the ultimate reality and is the `unity' of the universe. U.G.'s admission would be somewhat akin to that of the scientists in another sense also, namely, that it is somewhat speculative (although perhaps not to him), for in the awareness of his own thoughtless state there must be some thought operating (according to his own admission, or else he would not be able to report about it), and his statement about consciousness being everywhere would, therefore, also be somewhat speculative. He may have superior knowledge (to that which we have) in this matter, but, to us, his statements expressing such knowledge must, like the statements of the scientists, sound speculative.
Is it possible, then, that when the mystic talks about the experience of unity (say, his experience of Brahman or of Emptiness) that there is just a unity of consciousness (let us say, just awareness) without any awareness of that awareness. In other words, is it possible that, although in the mystic the continuity of consciousness is broken up in such a way that there is no self (the continuity of consciousness or experience or memory is what creates the self), there is still a physiological lingering or trace of a previous experience? And is it possible that, although there might not be any explicit subject-object distinction at the time of experience, a memory of it becomes possible later because the physiological trace is translated at that later moment as a memory experience, and as a consequence, one recognizes and names the experience (albeit calling it nameless)? It may well be that the experience now is remembered as one of formless emptiness or of energy or of ecstasy. In any case, it would be remembered as being free from any of the delineations of ordinary experience.
Sheldrake argues that just because we do not know of any memory without the brain, it does not follow that there cannot be any memory outside the brain. For all we know, the brain can act as a conduit through which memory (or consciousness) manifests itself, much like the antenna and the wiring in a radio act as conduits for the electromagnetic waves to be manifested as sound. Thus, just as the radio signal can exist (in the form of electromagnetic waves) outside the radio with its antenna and wiring, memory can exist outside the brain.
UG on his experiences - There are no persons, and no space within to create a self. What is left after the continuity of thought is blown away, is one disjointed, independent, series of interactions. What happens in the environment around me, happens in here. There is no division. When the armor you are wearing around is stripped away, you find an extraordinary sensitivity of the senses that respond to the phases of the moon, the passage of the seasons, and the movements of the other planets. There is simply no isolated, separate, existence of its own here, only the throb of life, like a jellyfish. ...It [the death process] defies description. But I can mention that in this death state, the ordinary breath stops entirely and the body is able to `breathe' through other physiological means. Among the many doctors I have discussed this strange phenomena with, only Dr. Laboyer, an expert in childbirth, gave me a sort of explanation. He says that newborn babies have a similar way of breathing. This is probably what the original word pranayama meant. This body goes through the death process on a daily basis, so often, in fact, that every time it renews itself it is a given a longer lease. When, one day, it cannot renew itself, it is finished and carted off to the ash heap. ....After the breath and heartbeat come to almost a complete stop, somehow the body begins to`come back'. The corpse-like appearance of the body--the stiffness, coldness and ash covering--begin to disappear. The body warms up and begins to move and the metabolism, including the pulse, picks up. If you, out of scientific curiosity, wish to test me, I am not interested. I am simply making a statement, not selling a product. When the separative thought structure dies, these glands and nervous plexi take over the functioning of the organism. It is a painful process, for the hold of thought over the glands and plexi is strong and has to be `burnt' off. This can be experienced by an individual. The burning or `ionization` needs energy and space to take place. For this reason the limits of the body are reached, with energy lashing out in all directions. The body's containment of that energy in its limited form brings pain, even though there is no experiencer of pain there. This painful death process is something nobody--not even the most ardent religious practitioners and yogis--wants. It is a very painful thing. it is not the result of will, but is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
Scientists in the field of evolution now think that the present breed of humans we have on this planet probably evolved out of a degenerated species. The mutation that carried on the self-consciousness must have taken place in a degenerate species. That is why we have messed everything up. It is anybody's guess as to whether anyone can change the whole thing.(MM, p.148).
The way U.G. functions is as a natural living organism, without the `stranglehold' of thought--he functions efficiently, from moment to moment, without any urge to be or do anything other than what he is doing at that moment. He explains how, in him, there is chaos and order simultaneously in every moment of attention; how his visual perception is two- dimensional; how one picture of whatever is occurring is replaced by another, totally disconnected picture as soon as some other thing in the environment captures his attention; how there is no connecting link between one event and another; how music can be mere `noise'; how, as an occasion demands, all the knowledge relevant to it is brought to bear upon it, and when the need is gone, then he is back to the `meaningless' or thoughtless state.
"For those who believe there is such a thing as rebirth, there is rebirth; and for those who do not believe in it, there is no such thing. However, `Objectively speaking' there is no rebirth -- for what is there to be born again?"
"All chronic disease is genetic" -- here he seems to believe in some kind of physiological karma -- there is nothing you can do about it, except bear with it and, if necessary, temporarily palliate it.
To experience pain you have to link one (momentary) sensation with another through memory and thought. Pain is necessary to the healing process -- if you let it be, the body will find its way of absorbing or integrating it.
The body never dies; it is only recycled -- our (non-existent) self is the only thing that dies. If left alone without the influence of thought, the body functions most sensitively, efficiently and absolutely peacefully.
We don't want to be free from our problems, for to be free from them is to put an end to ourselves.
In ME (p. 46), U.G. describes his state as a state of `not knowing'; knowledge only comes into the picture when there is a demand for it. Once the demand is met, then he is back again in the state of not knowing. On the very next page (p. 47), speaking of the "tremendous peace that is always there within, that is your natural state," he says, "...This is volcanic in its nature: it's bubbling all the time - the energy, the life - that is its quality." Then, U.G. asks, "You may ask how I know. I don't know. Life is aware of itself, if we can put it that way - it is conscious of itself." Nowadays, U.G. would express the thought somewhat differently by saying, "Knowing and not knowing exist in the same `frame'."
I think that when a person is freed from the `stranglehold' of thought, in some sense the person (or the subject) does not exist as a continuing entity any longer. Not that the entity ever really existed before -- only the illusion of it was there. Now that the illusion is not there, knowledge operates for a moment, answers the demands of the situation, and immediately and automatically slips back into the background.(5) When U.G. answers his audience's questions, he responds in words. His audience tends to make sense and meaning out of these words and is tempted to apply the same rules of logic that are normally applied to discourse. But as there is no `person' in someone like U.G., there is no division (or sense of separation) within him; and whatever `unity' is there is expressing itself without the normal logic of `consciousness' or `experience'. Even U.G.'s responses to our questions have no meaning for him. It is not that they are meaningless. There is no consciousness of `separation' or of anything (or anyone) as being separate from himself. Hence, it would not be appropriate to call statements of U.G. expressions of `knowledge', at least in the ordinary sense of knowing. Words, meanings, music, sounds, objects, etc., appear for a moment and then in the next moment (or `in the same frame') recede into the background and become mere noise, two dimensional space, irritations or `blobs'. We, however, `interpret' the sounds coming from U.G. as meaningful and try to apply truth values to the statements coming from him. But, for U.G., these ideas do not have `meaning', or truth or falsehood.
I think the answer to these questions lies in the epistemological challenge (See page 8 above) U.G. poses to both the mystic and the scientist. If the critique he makes of both mysticism and science is extended to his own statements, it is true that we are led to some puzzles. But then, what if the above is the only possible way a man who lives in an undivided state lives, and traditional mystics did not always realize its implications?(6) Although U.G.'s utterances make no `sense' to U.G. (it is not that they are nonsense either), his audience cannot help but try to make sense out of them, for they are using the activity of making sense as part of the project of making their selves, in the sense that they relate his statements to some project (epistemological, spiritual or some other personal project) in their lives. U.G., on the other hand, can operate in this world without having to fall into the dichotomy of sense and nonsense. To us, he appears to be a man like any other man, living, and carrying on in this world. U.G., however, has no sense of who he is. He has no concept or image of himself, and hence even the question of whether he is alive or not-alive does not arise for him. He may momentarily answer our questions with counter-sounds or utterances. The problem of making sense, attributing truth and falsehood, or looking for the facts `behind' the words, is our problem, not his.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Releasing the Cows
(Told by Master Thich Nhat Hanh)
One day the Buddha was sitting in the wood with thirty or forty monks. They had an excellent lunch and they were enjoying the company of each other. There was a farmer passing by and the farmer was very unhappy. He asked the Buddha and the monks whether they had seen his cows passing by. The Buddha said they had not seen any cows passing by.
The farmer said, "Monks, I'm so unhappy. I have twelve cows and I don't know why they all ran away. I have also a few acres of a sesame seed plantation and the insects have eaten up everything. I suffer so much I think I am going to kill myself.
The Buddha said, "My friend, we have not seen any cows passing by here. You might like to look for them in the other direction."
So the farmer thanked him and ran away, and the Buddha turned to his monks and said, "My dear friends, you are the happiest people in the world. You don't have any cows to lose. If you have too many cows to take care of, you will be very busy.
"That is why, in order to be happy, you have to learn the art of cow releasing (laughter). You release the cows one by one. In the beginning you thought that those cows were essential to your happiness, and you tried to get more and more cows. But now you realize that cows are not really conditions for your happiness; they constitute an obstacle for your happiness. That is why you are determined to release your cows."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?
In trying to understand how gravity behaves on the quantum scale, physicists have developed a model that has an interesting implication: mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles might be made of various forms of black holes.
gravity is considered an astronomical-scale force; its effects on smaller scales seem to be virtually nonexistent. However, as the scientists write, "it has often been assumed that near the Planck scale, gravity would somehow assert itself and become comparable in strength to the other forces of nature, likely as a product of some grand unification picture." Coyne and Cheng approach the problem of small-scale gravity by presenting a new model of black hole evaporation. As black holes lose energy, they slowly evaporate, shrinking in size down to the quantum scale - where they may be identical to elementary particles. The new model assumes "that gravity is truly strong and fully comparable with other forces, but that we have not experimentally looked in those places where it resides," the authors write. "But instead of invoking extra dimensions and branes, we look elsewhere. An obvious place where experimentalists have not tested gravity, in any way, is directly at the horizons of black holes of sufficient temperature such that quantum gravity could be operative. We speculate that at this level, the spacetime structures of the horizons could be far more complex than those predicted by general relativity. They might well require more degrees of freedom to stipulate a particular state, and they might leak information; i.e., not be true horizons in the usual sense of the word. Most important, if gravity on or within these horizons is truly strong, yet we see no evidence of that on larger scales, then the complex horizons must be shielding in nature." A shielding pseudo-horizon, they say, is an unconventional speculation, as it suggests that gravity is a very strong force but is substantially shielded.
Coyne and Cheng's "shielded strong gravity scenario" (SSGS), which is based on principles of thermodynamics and high-temperature physics, can describe black holes on all scales, but the differences in this approach manifest themselves only at Planckian and sub-Planckian black hole masses. At a critical point, the new model ceases to follow the unusual thermodynamics of the classical black hole, and instead produces a state that looks more and more like an object obeying traditional thermal physics. For instance, in the model, black hole evaporation is free of physical infinities, possesses traditional thermodynamic properties after an apparent phase change, and likely conserves information.
In other words, the model predicts that any states to be found at sub-Planckian masses will behave normally, and will be essentially identical to elementary particles. "Perhaps the most reassuring conclusion that we find is that the dynamical solution in either model forces the sub-Planckian states to obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and thus allows them to act as normal fundamental particles," the scientists write.
When the physicists investigated what these mini black holes would act like, they found that the quantization of space at this scale would mean that mini black holes could turn up at a wide variety of energy levels, and in large numbers. They predict that these black holes might be so common that all particles could essentially be various forms of black holes at different energy levels.
"At first glance the scenario derived in SSGS seems bizarre, but it is not: this is exactly what would be expected if an evaporating black hole leaves a remnant consistent with quantum mechanics," Coyne and Cheng write. "One might posit that the black hole smoothly turns into something approximating a large and unstable elementary particle, which then continues to evaporate (decay) into familiar stationary states. ... This would put a whole new light on the process of evaporation of large black holes, which might then appear no different in principle from the correlated decays of elementary particles."
One of the implications of this model could be that dark energy and dark matter - which seem to act as repulsive gravity - could instead be surrounded by local concentrations of gravity-shielding black holes at the elementary particle level. Such possibilities will be difficult to investigate, however. Although it's possible that future LHC experiments could sample regions where these black holes are produced, the scientists note that this is what high-energy physics has been doing all along at other energy scales. It may not be possible to disentangle black holes from elementary particles, if there truly is no fundamental difference.
The God Chemical - Brain Chemistry of the Mystics
Actually, Griffiths says that when he took up meditation 15 years ago, he began thinking differently about the nature of reality. He wondered: What if he could study what happens to the brain when people enjoy spiritual experiences? Griffiths recruited 36 people. They were all middle-aged and stable, had an active spiritual practice — whether Christian, Jewish or other — and were willing to take the trip of their lives. Among them was 56-year-old Karin Sokel.
"They asked me to lay down with headphones and the most powerful music I've ever heard," Sokel recalls. "I was blindfolded, and I began to have my experience."
Sokel was involved in five sessions, and she describes them as the most profound experiences of her life.
"I know that I had a merging with what I call oneness, I am," she says. "There was a time that I was being gently pulled into it, and I saw it as light. … It isn't even describable. It's not just light; it's love."
Sokel's words echo those of mystics through the ages, who talked of a physical union with God, a peek into eternity or an out-of-body experience. Griffiths says 70 percent of the subjects had full-blown mystical experiences, which Griffiths calls "remarkable."
Griffiths' research offers clues about the mechanics of spiritual mystery, says neuroscientist Solomon Snyder.
Serotonin And The Mechanism Of Mysticism
"If we assume that the psychedelic, drug-induced state is very much like the mystical state," Snyder says, "then if we find out the molecular mechanism of the action of the drug, then you could say that we have some insight into what's going on in the brains of mystics."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
On Moderation
yuktāhāravihārasya yuktaceṣṭasya karmasu
yuktasvapnāvabodhasya yogo bhavati duḥkhahā
i.e. those who eat moderately, recreation is regular, efforts in work are balanced, sleep is moderate and wakefulness is also moderate then their practice of Yoga will be fruitful. So one should follow moderation in whatever one does. This is the best method to save your energies from wasting. If you overdo anything, it’ll take away the tranquility either of mind or of body or exhaust both.
Gautam Buddha was one of the greatest Yogi the world has ever seen. In his eight-fold path, he emphasized on moderation a lot. The word “samyak”, which he put with the name of every step of eight-fold path means “in balance”. The more you are in balance, the more energy you conserve and it is used further in elevating coiled up Kundalini at Muladhar Chakra.
One of the best techniques to bring this balance into your entire system in order to save energy is to breathe rhythmically. Our general pattern of breathing is very irregular. It dissipates a lot of energy. But when you breathe in a rhythm, your mind and body get relaxed and they become like a great batteries that store vital energy. Rhythmical breathing is the first step of Pranayama. After practicing it for few days, start other breathing exercise like Kapal-bhait, Anulom-Vilom and Bhasrika etc. These breathing exercises generate tremendous amount of energy that can be felt just after few days of starting the practice.
Though it is generally observed that these techniques cause increased sexual urge. The reason behind it is that the energy tries to find an outlet and sex is the habitual outlet humans are used to of. So beware of it. If it doesn’t find an outlet through lower doors, it tries to go up through Sushumna which is known as awakening of Kundalini. But the problem is – if one tries to suppress the sexual urge, it disturbs the mind. So don’t try to suppress it, rather be aware of it. Neither indulge in it nor suppress it, just observe it. This passive observation creates the required thrust for Kundalini to go upward.
Yet another thing to be concerned about is what you eat. Food affects the mind a great deal. According to Tantra, one should eat 50%, take 25% liquid and rest of 25% stomach should remain empty. Avoid all sorts of intoxicants as they lessen the control over thoughts and these uncontrolled thoughts result in sheer wastage of energy.
These are not hard-and-fast rules. You should always rely on common sense while following these rules; otherwise they may cause damage too. That is why I tried to explain the reasons behind everything. Don’t wait, start doing these things and see the difference. I hope it will prove to be helpful.
Osho on the Art of Meditation
My whole life I have been talking about meditation. There are one hundred and twelve methods of meditation; I have gone through all those methods--and not intellectually. It took me years to go through each method and to find out its very essence, and after going through one hundred and twelve methods I was amazed that the essence is witnessing. The methods' non-essentials are different, but the center of each method is witnessing.
Hence I can say to you, there is only one meditation in the whole world and that is the art of witnessing. It will do everything--the whole transformation of your being.
Whatever I am doing, my meditation continues. It is not something that I have to do it separately; it is just an art of witnessing. Speaking to you, I'm also witnessing myself speaking to you. So here are three persons: you are listening, one person is speaking, and there is one behind who is watching and that is my real me. And to keep constant contact with it is meditation.
So whatever you do does not matter, you just keep contact with your witness. I have reduced religion to its very fundamental essence. Now everything else is just ritual. This much is enough. And this does not need you to become a Christian or a Hindu or a Mohammedan or anybody, and this can be done by an atheist, by a communist, by anybody, because it needs no kind of theology, no kind of belief system. It is simply a scientific method of slowly moving inwards. A point comes when you reach to your innermost core, the very center of the cyclone.
The basic element running through all the methods of meditation is witnessing.
You ask me: What is witnessing?
Whatever you are doing. For example, right now you are writing. You can write in two ways. The ordinary way that you always write. You can try another method: you can write it and you can also inside witness that you are writing it.
And you ask: Does that mean some kind of detachment?
A detachment. You are a little distant, away, watching yourself writing. So any act, just moving my hand, I can watch. Walking on the road, I can watch myself walking. Eating, I can watch. So whatever you are doing, just remain a witness.
If you have any ego, it will destroy it, because this watching is very much poisonous to the ego. It is not ego that watches. The ego is absolutely blind. It cannot watch anything. You can watch your ego. For example, somebody insults you and you feel hurt, and your ego feels hurt. You can watch it. You can watch that you are feeling hurt, your ego is feeling hurt, that you are angry. And you can still remain aloof, detached, just a watcher on the hills. Whatever goes on in the valley you can see.
So all the methods are basically different ways of witnessing. I have condensed them in a very simple way:
First, watch your actions of the body.
Second, watch your actions of the mind: thoughts, imaginations.
Third, watch your actions of the heart: feelings, love, hate, moods, sadness, happiness.
And if you can succeed in watching all these three, and as your witnessing grows deeper and deeper, a moment comes that there is only witnessing but nothing to witness. The mind is empty, the heart is empty, the body is relaxed.
In that moment happens something like a quantum leap. Your whole witnessing jumps upon itself. It witnesses itself, because there is nothing else to witness. And this is the revolution which I call enlightenment, self-realization. Or you can give it any name, but this is the ultimate experience of bliss. You cannot go beyond it.
This is the simplest. And because it can be done without in any way interfering with your everyday life, because it is something that you can go on doing the whole day. Any other method you have to take some time apart for it. And any method that needs one hour or half an hour to sit and do it is not going to help much, because twenty-three hours you will be doing just the opposite. And whatever you have gained in one hour will be washed away in twenty-three hours.
This is the only method that you can continue around the clock. While falling asleep you can go on witnessing, witnessing, that the sleep is coming, coming, coming, that it is getting darker and the body is relaxing. And a moment comes when you can watch that you are asleep. And still there is a corner, a space in you which is awake.
When you can watch yourself twenty-four hours, you have arrived. Now there is nothing to be done. Then witnessing has become natural to you. You don't have to do it. It will be simply like breathing, happening to you.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Ramana Maharshi Self Inquiry Meditation Method
Ramana Maharshi Self Inquiry Meditation Method
Question : You say one can realize the Self by a search for it. What is the character of this search?
Ramana Maharshi : You are the mind or think that you are the mind. The mind is nothing but thoughts. Now behind every particular thought there is a general thought, which is the `I', that is yourself. Let us call this `I' the first thought. Stick to this `I'-thought and Question it to find out what it is. When this Question takes strong hold on you, you cannot think of other thoughts.
Question : When I do this and cling to my self, that is, the `I'-thought, other thoughts come and go, but I say to myself `Who am I ?' and there is no answer forthcoming. To be in this condition is the practice. Is it so?
Ramana Maharshi : This is a mistake that people often make. What happens when you make a serious quest for the Self is that the `I'-thought disappears and something else from the depths takes hold of you and that is not the `I' which commenced the quest.
Question : What is this something else?
Ramana Maharshi : That is the real Self, the import of `I'. It is not the ego. It is the Supreme Being itself.
Question : But you have often said that one must reject other thoughts when one begins the quest but the thoughts are endless. If one thought is rejected, another comes and there seems to be no end at all.
Ramana Maharshi : I do not say that you must go on rejecting thoughts. Cling to yourself, that is, to the `I'-thought. When your interest keeps you to that single idea, other thoughts will automatically get rejected and they will vanish.
Question : And so rejection of thoughts is not necessary?
Ramana Maharshi : No. It may be necessary for a time or for some. You fancy that there is no end if one goes on rejecting every thought when it rises. It is not true, there is an end. If you are vigilant and make a stern effort to reject every thought when it rises you will soon find that you are going deeper and deeper into your own inner self. At that level it is not necessary to make an effort to reject thoughts.
Question : Then it is possible to be without effort, without strain.
Ramana Maharshi : Not only that, it is impossible for you to make an effort beyond a certain extent.
Question : I want to be further enlightened. Should I try to make no effort at all?
Ramana Maharshi : Here it is impossible for you to be without effort. When you go deeper, it is impossible for you to make any effort. If the mind becomes introverted through enquiry into the source of aham-vritti, the vasanas become extinct. The light of the Self falls on the vasanas and produces the phenomenon of reflection we call the mind. Thus, when the vasanas become extinct the mind also disappears, being absorbed into the light of the one reality, the Heart. This is the sum and substance of all that an aspirant needs to know. What is imperatively required of him is an earnest and onepointed enquiry into the source of the aham-vritti.
Question : How should a beginner start this practice?
Ramana Maharshi : The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry `Who am I?' The thought 'Who am I?', destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre. If other thoughts rise one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire `To whom did they rise?' What does it matter however many thoughts rise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires `To whom did this rise?', it will be known `To me'. If one then enquires `Who am I?', the mind will turn back to its source [the Self] and the thought which had risen will also subside. By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases.
Although tendencies towards sense-objects [vishaya vasanas], which have been recurring down the ages, rise in countless numbers like the waves of the ocean, they will all perish as meditation on one's nature becomes more and more intense. Without giving room even to the doubting thought, `Is it possible to destroy all these tendencies [vasanas] and to remain as Self alone?', one should persistently cling fast to self-attention.
As long as there are tendencies towards sense-objects in the mind, the enquiry `Who am I ?' is necessary. As and when thoughts rise, one should annihilate all of them through enquiry then and there in their very place of origin. Not attending to what-is-other [anya] is non-attachment [vairagya] or desirelessness [nirasa]. Not leaving Self is knowledge [jnana]. In truth, these two [desirelessness and knowledge] are one and the same. Just as a pearl-diver, tying a stone to his waist, dives into the sea and takes the pearl lying at the bottom, so everyone, diving deep within himself with non-attachment, can attain the pearl of Self. If one resorts uninterruptedly to remembrance of one's real nature [swarupasmarana] until one attains Self, that alone will be sufficient.
Enquiring `Who am I that is in bondage?' and knowing one's real nature [swarupa] alone is liberation. Always keeping the mind fixed in Self alone is called 'self-enquiry', whereas meditation [dhyana] is thinking oneself to be the absolute [Brahman], which is existence-consciousness-bliss [sat-chit-ananda].
Question : The yogis say that one must renounce this world and go off into secluded jungles if one wishes to find the truth.
Ramana Maharshi : The life of action need not be renounced. If you meditate for an hour or two every day you can then carry on with your duties. If you meditate in the right manner then the current of mind induced will continue to flow even in the midst of your work. It is as though there were two ways of expressing the same idea; the same line which you take in meditation will be expressed in your activities.
Question : What will be the result of doing that?
Ramana Maharshi : As you go on you will find that your attitude towards people, events and objects gradually changes. Your actions will tend to follow your meditations of their own accord.
Question : Then you do not agree with the yogis?
Ramana Maharshi : A man should surrender the personal selfishness which binds him to this world. Giving up the false self is the true renunciation.
Question : How is it possible to become selfless while leading a life of worldly activity?
Ramana Maharshi : There is no conflict between work and wisdom.
Question : Do you mean that one can continue all the old activities in one's profession, for instance, and at the same time get enlightenment ?
Ramana Maharshi : Why not ? But in that case one will not think that it is the old personality which is doing the work, because one's consciousness will gradually become transferred until it is centered in that which is beyond the little self.
Question : If a person is engaged in work, there will be little time left for him to meditate.
Ramana Maharshi : Setting apart time for meditation is only for the merest spiritual novices. A man who is advancing will begin to enjoy the deeper beatitude whether he is at work or not. While his hands are in society, he keeps his head cool in solitude.
Question : Then you do not teach the way of yoga?
Ramana Maharshi : The yogi tries to drive his mind to the goal, as a cowherd drives a bull with a stick, but on this path the seeker coaxes the bull by holding out a handful of grass.
Question : How is that done?
Ramana Maharshi : You have to ask yourself the Question `Who am I ?' This investigation will lead in the end to the discovery of something within you which is behind the mind. Solve that great problem and you will solve all other problems.
Question : Why is concentration ineffective?
Ramana Maharshi : To ask the mind to kill the mind is like making the thief the policeman. He will go with you and pretend to catch the thief, but nothing will be gained. So you must turn inward and see from where the mind rises and then it will cease to exist.
Question : In turning the mind inwards, are we not still employing the mind?
Ramana Maharshi : Of course we are employing the mind. It is well known and admitted that only with the help of the mind can the mind be killed. But instead of setting about saying there is a mind, and I want to kill it, you begin to seek the source of the mind, and you find the mind does not exist at all. The mind, turned outwards, results in thoughts and objects. Turned inwards, it becomes itself the Self.
Question : How can I tell if I am making progress with my enquiry?
Ramana Maharshi : The degree of the absence of thoughts is the measure of your progress towards Self-realization. But Self-realization itself does not admit of progress, it is ever the same. The Self remains always in realization. The obstacles are thoughts. Progress is measured by the degree of removal of the obstacles to understanding that the Self is always realized. So thoughts must be checked by seeking to whom they arise. So you go to their source, where they do not arise.
Question : Doubts are always arising. Hence my Question.
Ramana Maharshi : A doubt arises and is cleared. Another arises and that is cleared, making way for yet another; and so it goes on. So there is no possibility of clearing away all doubts. See to whom the doubts arise. Go to their source and abide in it. Then they cease to arise. That is how doubts are to be cleared.
Source: from book “Be As You Are” by David Godman
Echoes of Antiquity: Rediscovering the Ancient Indian Roots of Modern AI Ontologies
For many, the story of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the formal structuring of knowledge (Ontology) begins in ancient Greece with Aristot...
-
Saw the Movie Tare Zameen Par a couple of weeks back. This instantly reminded me of Soichiro Hondas words - The value of life can be m...
-
The class 6 student history text books in India make the following proud statement about the glorious days of ancient India. “Ancient India ...
-
Scientific background on The Afterlife Dysfunction, such as similar theories and thought experiments proposed in popular interpretations o...
