Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 93 First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly with scientific methods - it is obvious. This is no how connected with senses/ego stuff . Sadhana matters are totally different. Faith in God, Love, awareness are not worldly. As Shastra says, "Prema sthitir alaukaki". This topic started from diet, do u recall? What u said is a view of a materialist . U said that diet - material food we take into our gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism. Now u turn the case up-side-down . I just wanna set the matter as it is. Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind. This was in fact realised by many saints of India. Just so called "advaita-vedanta" became for some reasons more popular. Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have spiritual meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning LOL. Do U believe that Krishna in fact lifted a mountain? That Indra`s body was once covered with vulvas? That Ravana had 10 heads? Lets continue with scriptures . Have u read Shiva-svarodaya? Try out it! Is the depiction of foetus growth in Garbhopanishat exact? What about fantastic history that we find in Puranas? Are the stupid and cruel prescriptions of Manavadharma-shastra also spiritual? What about greatness of vedic samhitas? Have u read Vedas BTW? Very interesting. In Rigveda we find a hymn to frogs (!) and a hymn for return of cow flocks LOL. In Atharvaveda 3rd hymn is against urine- blocking! Then we get a hymn for big penis to grow, a hymn for pissing, a hymn to destroy someone`s virile strenght etc. Hope no need to continue LOL. Is all this crap "divine revelation"? Or just mythological stuff? Why brahmans invented a prohibition to eat cow meat? Before they ate it. Vedas are the proof. Why it is prohibited to copulate with ur wife during her menses? Why it is "impure" to take food from "shudra"? Do these things have great spiritual base or only mythologic? "Sati", an ugly and cruel custom, sprouted out from myth. This is just one point to show how mythological mind is dangerous... So... If u want to continue, ok, come on. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > "Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. But what > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths?" > > > Those 'myths' are only 'myths' to people like you who have been > given a spiritual lobotomy by the press relations department of > the scientific communtity. You have mistakenly bought into the > so-called evidence of your senses because it gave your ego a > sense of control and you ceded your independence to a closed > shop scientific guild. > > On the other hand, those who have deconditioned themselves > through sadhana perceive the wisdom of the ancients and > continue employ those ancient findings in their daily lives. > > Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears to > hear will hear. Keep up your sadhana and one day you too will > recognize the illusion playing out before us and you will know the > wisdom of the ancients. > > > Omprem > > > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > 93 > > > > Yet AC was very scientific and sceptic in his approach - that > can be > > seen from his writings. > > > > Science in fact does have it`s limitations; but is has it`s realm > as > > well. Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. > But what > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths? > > We have to differentiate between spiritual path and coomon > life: for > > meditation it is useful to percieve everything as manifestation > of > > consciousness, but for physical needs we usually have to > make physical > > efforts. > > Whatever some people here say against modern science, > nevertheless > > they still use electricity, transport, computers... They could have > > tried "mythological means" to travel to distant places, chant > several > > billion times some kind of bhucharisiddhiprapti-mantra or use > magical > > ointment LOL, but in spite of this they use technologies based > upon > > science. Why? > > > > > > , Lili Masamura > <sephirah5> > > wrote: > > > Actually, Swami Paramahansa Shivaji, (also known as > > > "Aleister Crowley') says much the same thing in his > > > incredible book "Yoga". There really IS nothing else > > > BUT the observer and the observed and the interaction; > > > there is nothing else to consider! > > > Lilith M. > > > --- SophiasHeaven@a... wrote: > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/13/2004 9:24:53 AM Mountain > > > > Daylight Time, > > > > omprem writes: > > > > > > > > > But how effective is the scientific method? It > > > > uses flawed and > > > > > inadequate senses and an outward orientation, > > > > both of which > > > > > contain the seeds of the limitations of the > > > > scientific method. > > > > > There is nothing scientific about much of the > > > > 'science' being > > > > > conducted to day with our tax dollars. Most of it > > > > is a job-creation > > > > > scam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now they are saying, according to quantum > > > > physics and the idea of > > > > INTENT, that scientists get the results they are > > > > looking for when doing > > > > experiments. This could account for the varied test > > > > results. > > > > > > > > Rather than try to explain this myself, I"ll quote > > > > this excerpt from the > > > > writings of a Theoretical Quantum Physicist, Fred > > > > Alan Wolf, in "The Spiritual > > > > Universe: one physicist's vision of spirit, soul, > > > > matter, and self: > > > > > > > > "Desire, through our powers of observation, > > > > actually modifies and > > > > alters the course of the physical world, causing > > > > things to occur that would not > > > > normally occur if they were not desired." > > > > The Quantum Watched Pot > > > > > > > > "How does desire affect the physical world? Intent > > > > operates in the physical > > > > world by altering the observed state of the world. > > > > The fact that intent > > > > affects the physical world refelcts a recent > > > > discovery by quantum physicists Yakir > > > > Aharonov and M. Vardi that has received experimental > > > > verification by Wayne > > > > Itano and his colleagues. Aharonov and Vardi have > > > > shown that the old proverb 'a > > > > watched pot never boils' may have a range of > > > > validity previously unsuspected. > > > > They hae discovered a paradoxical situation that > > > > arises when a quantum system > > > > is watched carefully. As they put it: > > > > If one checks by continuous > > > > observations, if a given quantum > > > > > > > > system evolves from some initial > > > > state to some other final > > > > state > > > > along a specific trajectory... the > > > > result is always positive, > > > > whether > > > > or not the system would have done so > > > > on its own accord. > > > > > > > > "If a quantum system is monitored > > > > continuously, we couls say > > > > vigilantly, it will do practically anything. For > > > > example ... > > > > " ... the decay of an unstable system. On > > > > its own the system would > > > > decay in a few microseconds. But if it is watched > > > > continuosly, it will never > > > > decay. All vigilantly watched "quantum pots" never > > > > boil, even they they are > > > > heated forever. ... ... > > > > ... > > > > "This implies there is a deep connection between the > > > > observer and the > > > > observed. So deep, in fact, that we really cannot > > > > separate them. All we can do is > > > > alter the way we experience reality. This is where > > > > intent comes in" (pp. > > > > 217-218) > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > So, there you have it: scientific objectivity has a > > > > BIG hole in it, otherwise > > > > called, the intent of the observer ( the scientist ) > > > > to get the results > > > > he/she is predisposed to watch for. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > Cathie > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > > http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 In a message dated 10/15/2004 10:16:31 PM Mountain Daylight Time, bhagatirtha writes: > 93 > > First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly with > scientific methods - it is obvious. I said, there is secular science, and spiritual science and I would consider both as art. This is no how connected with senses/ego stuff . > > Sadhana matters are totally different. Faith in God, Love, awareness > are not worldly. As Shastra says, "Prema sthitir alaukaki". Faith in God, awareness, come from what we are taught as children. We can be taught to have faith based on fear. So much religion is based on fear: "if you don't believe the "right" way, you will not get to heaven, you will go straight to hell, and even if you don't go to hell, you will not reach Samadhi you will be stuck in the "steenking body" -- So much faith is based on programming we received as children. How do we come to "Genuine Faith?" For genuine faith one has to have a deep experience. Maybe that deep experience will lead one to embrace the "faith" one's parents raised on it. Maybe that deep spritiual experience will ead one to embrace some different "faith" maybe that deep spiritual experience will lead one to see there is a profound connection between the Spiritual-Mind and the Body. Sure they are two poles on a continuum. I agree. And yet, I feel, I believe in a "Mind-Body" and that the two are intimately connected. When we have fear, it is stored in the body, and this affects our faith. When we have guilt, it is stored in the body, and this affects our faith. When we have a deep spiritual experience, we feel it in the Mind-Body, and this affects our faith. When we see that our spiritual reality has the power to affect our body reality, this affects our faith. Karma happens also in the world of the body and the bodies of others and also in the Mind, and this also profoundly impacts our faith, as it is INTENDED to do so. > This topic started from diet, do u recall? What u said is a view of a > materialist . U said that diet - material food we take into our > gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism. Now u > turn the case up-side-down . I just wanna set the matter as it is. > I said that I personally feel much better the less meat I eat. However, I ate meat most of my life and I cooked my food most of my life and I lived. Now I"m sungazing and that has a profound affect on how I experience what I eat. It is not that I personally believe ( though others may believe it) that if youeat meat you will be less Spiritually evolved, but that I believe the diet affects the clarity of the mind. If you eat too much sugar, that will affect your mind. If you drink coffee, that affects your mind. I don't believe it is WRONG to eat meat. I think the meat industry is gross and out of control. I believe Americans eat TOO MUCH meat and our need for this GROSS quantities of meat is basedon false beliefs about reality. I beleive if you eat a diet that makes your body healthy, your midn will be clear and that can be good in all sorts of ways, INCLUDING it can make your mind more clear for your spiritual pursuits. However, I DO NOT BELIEVE, PERSONALLY, THOUGH SOME I'M SURE DO, THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE UP MEAT TO BE A SPIRITUAL PERSON. I think the meat industry is out of control in my country. (What country are you in? ) > Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind. This was in fact > realised by many saints of India. Just so called "advaita-vedanta" > became for some reasons more popular. > The world is real, and so is the mind. the mind can fall prey to illusion. The world springs from what scientists call the "implicate realm" which is a realm that is located in every space in every time in the invisible realm of the Universal Mind. The World has a MIND OF IT"S OWN, so to speak. > Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have spiritual > meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning LOL. > Do U believe that Krishna in fact lifted a mountain? That Indra`s body > was once covered with vulvas? That Ravana had 10 heads? > I agree. I am a poet. And I couldn't agree with you more. And I would add, that the world of myth and images creates powerful ripples in the energy-world of Mind, and this, affecting our emotional and spiritual bodies, even according to psychotherapist, has a powerful force. If the images we harbor are riddled with guilt and fear, we may become sick, and dampen our energy, creating trouble for ourselves. If the images we harbor are riddled with beauty mystery and mythic/archetypal power, we empower ourselves. > Lets continue with scriptures . Have u read Shiva-svarodaya? Try out > it! Is the depiction of foetus growth in Garbhopanishat exact? What > about fantastic history that we find in Puranas? > Are the stupid and cruel prescriptions of Manavadharma-shastra also > spiritual? If you're asking MY opinion, no scriptures are flawless. They are poetry, created by spiritual seekers who had visions of what it all meant to them. Sometimes their visions are profound. sometims their visions are simply fantastic -- they mean something in the images to somebody who created them, and certainly, anybody is free to take issue with them. I have a copy of the Thirteen Princiapal Upanishads for some time now, translated from teh sanskrit. Are the stories you read in this very thick text? Might I find them in the Upanishads, or elsewhere? I know teh Upanishads talk a lot about Breath and Prana. > What about greatness of vedic samhitas? Have u read Vedas BTW? Very > interesting. In Rigveda we find a hymn to frogs (!) and a hymn for > return of cow flocks LOL. In Atharvaveda 3rd hymn is against urine- > blocking! Then we get a hymn for big penis to grow, a hymn for > pissing, a hymn to destroy someone`s virile strenght etc. > Hope no need to continue LOL. > Is all this crap "divine revelation"? Or just mythological stuff? > It sounds to me like some of it is more along the lines of "incantations" or "prayers" Native Americans sang song and dance to make rain come. It was their kind of magic. When we sing song, we send vibration out into what phycisists now call the "implicate realm" -- maybe the vibrations will call the cows home. Maybe the cows will be singing their own song, and will ignore it. Who knows the power of that song, until one tries it. Maybe it depends on the clarity of the one who sings it. Maybe the cows follow their own karma. To me that sounds more like hymns and prayers and psalm, then like myth.. > Why brahmans invented a prohibition to eat cow meat? Before they ate > it. Vedas are the proof. Why it is prohibited to copulate with ur wife > during her menses? Why it is "impure" to take food from "shudra"? > Do these things have great spiritual base or only mythologic? > I don't know why Brahmans prohibit the eating of cow meat. They must love cows dearly and not want to eat them. Personally, I feel there is way too much cow consumption in our country, not to mention degrading of cows. If I buy cow meat, it will be from cows that are grown on the free range, not fed growth hormones to speed up their growth, or injected with other drugs, and CERTAINLY NOT VEAL. VEAL has not crossed my lips for over 20 years, since i learned how dehumanizing they treat the baby calf, removing it from it's mother, keeping it in a stall where it often becomes sick, sad, lonely, and often even lame. There was a lot of superstition about a woman's menses in ancient cultures, because when there was no electricity, all women's cycles regulated according to teh moon, and when a woman all menstruated together at the dark of the moon, due to the moon's effecdt on melatonin in the woman's body and other things, it seemed very mysterious to ancietn people and became the source of great superstition. Among Native Americans, it was prohibitied/forbidden for hunters to copulate with their wife during her mensus cuz they would then have the smell of blood on them and other animals would smell it. they had menstrual huts and all the menstruating women stayed in the hut together until their menses was over. In this way, by staying in the hut, they were not eaten by wolves who would be attracted to the smell of blood. > "Sati", an ugly and cruel custom, sprouted out from myth. This is just > one point to show how mythological mind is dangerous... > It is not the mythological mind that is dangerous. It is the superstitious mind. It is the mind of Fear and Guilt that keeps us from experiencing for ourselves and takes away our freedom to act from our true inner self. Myth is not dangerous. Superstition and Fear are the danger. Blessings of the Goddess, Cathie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Goddess Saraswati represents all forms of learning, and all forms of teaching. Vedic astrologers disagree as to whether she gives protection from Jupiter (planet of Faith, teacher/Guru of the Gods) or from Mercury (planet of Science, the eternal student). In addition to her Vina (stringed instrument), Saraswati holds a Mala (rosary) -- symbolizing spoken words and Mantras (Spiritual communication), AND a Pustaka (palm-leaf book) -- symbolizing written words (Secular communication). Both the Spiritual and the Secular are controlled by Saraswati, but the Book is held lower down, and the Rosary is raised above her shoulders. Saraswati also has two Vahanas (vehicles). The Hamsa (white water-bird, a type of goose or swan) has powers of Discrimination. Give a hamsa a bowl of milk mixed with water, it will drink the milk and spit out the water. The Mayura (peacock), also her vehicle, has powers of transformation. Legends say that peacocks can eat the most horrible poisons without dying; they transform the poison into the beautiful blues and greens of the peacock's feathers (compare Shiva's drinking poison, which turned his throat blue). So all forms of knowledge are worth study -- but Spiritual Studies take predominance over Secular Studies. -- Len/ Kalipadma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 "First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly with scientific methods" You seem determined or unable to understand. Worldly problems are solved through sadhana. That 'eureka' moment that your beloved scientists aspire to is the result of fheir consciousness taking on the vibration of particular chakras and so gaining access to information not ordinarily available to them. "U said that diet - material food we take into our gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism." No. it is an explanation of how what do we do, think, say, believe or ingest will influence the functioning of our astral body and thus our ability to recognize our divine nature. Our so-called material body functions as it does because of our karmic blockages to the unimpeded flow of prana to and in the chakras and because of the blockages that we dissolve or create through how we conduct our life. There is nothing material about the 'material body': it is energy flow only and it is our responsibility to optimize that prana flow through our physical and mental actions. "Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind." In what is the world real, if its physcial laws can be suspended by those who are Self-Realized? The world is an illusion and it is our responsibility to find how the illusion is created. "Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have spiritual meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning." Your claiming that there is no literal meaning in these so-called myths does not make it so. You need to understand what was being communicated and how. You need to perfom sadhana to enable yourself to understand. Without that effort it is useless for you to argue just as it is useless for someone who has never taken a piano lesson to expect to entertain the world as a concert pianist. But take Chinnamasta, for example, who cuts off her own head. If we cut off our head, do we die? No, everything about you continues except that particular physcial body which will eventually be replaced with another physcial body until such time as a physcial body is no longer required. This is Chinnamasta's message to her attendents. The message is given graphically in a very dense and gross form so that people such as you have the opportunity to understand it . Omprem , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly with > scientific methods - it is obvious. > This is no how connected with senses/ego stuff . > Sadhana matters are totally different. Faith in God, Love, awareness > are not worldly. As Shastra says, "Prema sthitir alaukaki". > This topic started from diet, do u recall? What u said is a view of a > materialist . U said that diet - material food we take into our > gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism. Now u > turn the case up-side-down . I just wanna set the matter as it is. > > Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind. This was in fact > realised by many saints of India. Just so called "advaita-vedanta" > became for some reasons more popular. > > Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have spiritual > meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning LOL. > Do U believe that Krishna in fact lifted a mountain? That Indra`s body > was once covered with vulvas? That Ravana had 10 heads? > > Lets continue with scriptures . Have u read Shiva-svarodaya? Try out > it! Is the depiction of foetus growth in Garbhopanishat exact? What > about fantastic history that we find in Puranas? > Are the stupid and cruel prescriptions of Manavadharma-shastra also > spiritual? > What about greatness of vedic samhitas? Have u read Vedas BTW? Very > interesting. In Rigveda we find a hymn to frogs (!) and a hymn for > return of cow flocks LOL. In Atharvaveda 3rd hymn is against urine- > blocking! Then we get a hymn for big penis to grow, a hymn for > pissing, a hymn to destroy someone`s virile strenght etc. > Hope no need to continue LOL. > Is all this crap "divine revelation"? Or just mythological stuff? > > Why brahmans invented a prohibition to eat cow meat? Before they ate > it. Vedas are the proof. Why it is prohibited to copulate with ur wife > during her menses? Why it is "impure" to take food from "shudra"? > Do these things have great spiritual base or only mythologic? > > "Sati", an ugly and cruel custom, sprouted out from myth. This is just > one point to show how mythological mind is dangerous... > > So... If u want to continue, ok, come on. > > > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > > "Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. But what > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths?" > > > > > > Those 'myths' are only 'myths' to people like you who have been > > given a spiritual lobotomy by the press relations department of > > the scientific communtity. You have mistakenly bought into the > > so-called evidence of your senses because it gave your ego a > > sense of control and you ceded your independence to a closed > > shop scientific guild. > > > > On the other hand, those who have deconditioned themselves > > through sadhana perceive the wisdom of the ancients and > > continue employ those ancient findings in their daily lives. > > > > Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears to > > hear will hear. Keep up your sadhana and one day you too will > > recognize the illusion playing out before us and you will know the > > wisdom of the ancients. > > > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > Yet AC was very scientific and sceptic in his approach - that > > can be > > > seen from his writings. > > > > > > Science in fact does have it`s limitations; but is has it`s realm > > as > > > well. Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. > > But what > > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths? > > > We have to differentiate between spiritual path and coomon > > life: for > > > meditation it is useful to percieve everything as manifestation > > of > > > consciousness, but for physical needs we usually have to > > make physical > > > efforts. > > > Whatever some people here say against modern science, > > nevertheless > > > they still use electricity, transport, computers... They could > have > > > tried "mythological means" to travel to distant places, chant > > several > > > billion times some kind of bhucharisiddhiprapti-mantra or use > > magical > > > ointment LOL, but in spite of this they use technologies based > > upon > > > science. Why? > > > > > > > > > , Lili Masamura > > <sephirah5> > > > wrote: > > > > Actually, Swami Paramahansa Shivaji, (also known as > > > > "Aleister Crowley') says much the same thing in his > > > > incredible book "Yoga". There really IS nothing else > > > > BUT the observer and the observed and the interaction; > > > > there is nothing else to consider! > > > > Lilith M. > > > > --- SophiasHeaven@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/13/2004 9:24:53 AM Mountain > > > > > Daylight Time, > > > > > omprem writes: > > > > > > > > > > > But how effective is the scientific method? It > > > > > uses flawed and > > > > > > inadequate senses and an outward orientation, > > > > > both of which > > > > > > contain the seeds of the limitations of the > > > > > scientific method. > > > > > > There is nothing scientific about much of the > > > > > 'science' being > > > > > > conducted to day with our tax dollars. Most of it > > > > > is a job-creation > > > > > > scam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now they are saying, according to quantum > > > > > physics and the idea of > > > > > INTENT, that scientists get the results they are > > > > > looking for when doing > > > > > experiments. This could account for the varied test > > > > > results. > > > > > > > > > > Rather than try to explain this myself, I"ll quote > > > > > this excerpt from the > > > > > writings of a Theoretical Quantum Physicist, Fred > > > > > Alan Wolf, in "The Spiritual > > > > > Universe: one physicist's vision of spirit, soul, > > > > > matter, and self: > > > > > > > > > > "Desire, through our powers of observation, > > > > > actually modifies and > > > > > alters the course of the physical world, causing > > > > > things to occur that would not > > > > > normally occur if they were not desired." > > > > > The Quantum Watched Pot > > > > > > > > > > "How does desire affect the physical world? Intent > > > > > operates in the physical > > > > > world by altering the observed state of the world. > > > > > The fact that intent > > > > > affects the physical world refelcts a recent > > > > > discovery by quantum physicists Yakir > > > > > Aharonov and M. Vardi that has received experimental > > > > > verification by Wayne > > > > > Itano and his colleagues. Aharonov and Vardi have > > > > > shown that the old proverb 'a > > > > > watched pot never boils' may have a range of > > > > > validity previously unsuspected. > > > > > They hae discovered a paradoxical situation that > > > > > arises when a quantum system > > > > > is watched carefully. As they put it: > > > > > If one checks by continuous > > > > > observations, if a given quantum > > > > > > > > > > system evolves from some initial > > > > > state to some other final > > > > > state > > > > > along a specific trajectory... the > > > > > result is always positive, > > > > > whether > > > > > or not the system would have done so > > > > > on its own accord. > > > > > > > > > > "If a quantum system is monitored > > > > > continuously, we couls say > > > > > vigilantly, it will do practically anything. For > > > > > example ... > > > > > " ... the decay of an unstable system. On > > > > > its own the system would > > > > > decay in a few microseconds. But if it is watched > > > > > continuosly, it will never > > > > > decay. All vigilantly watched "quantum pots" never > > > > > boil, even they they are > > > > > heated forever. ... ... > > > > > ... > > > > > "This implies there is a deep connection between the > > > > > observer and the > > > > > observed. So deep, in fact, that we really cannot > > > > > separate them. All we can do is > > > > > alter the way we experience reality. This is where > > > > > intent comes in" (pp. > > > > > 217-218) > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, there you have it: scientific objectivity has a > > > > > BIG hole in it, otherwise > > > > > called, the intent of the observer ( the scientist ) > > > > > to get the results > > > > > he/she is predisposed to watch for. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > Cathie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > > > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > > > http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 93 In fact i`m fed up LOL. U, "Omprem", are unwilling not only to understand but even to DISCUSS properly . Each of Ur mesages is a proof. Again i get no exact answers from U, only general remarks. Did U notice Urself that U ignored a half of my message? Discussing in this manner is useless, i`m sorry. U are the good example of unscientific approach that leads to nothing but baseless self-confidence... This is my last reply to U i hope . I perfectly understand that U will not have any benefit from it; thus i write only for others to read. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > "First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly > with scientific methods"> > > You seem determined or unable to understand. Worldly > problems are solved through sadhana. That 'eureka' moment > that your beloved scientists aspire to is the result of fheir > consciousness taking on the vibration of particular chakras and > so gaining access to information not ordinarily available to them. What is the internal reason of some scientific understanding is one thing (u may speculate about chakra stuff - having no realization of it; in any case it is consciousness, Chiti, working in scientists as well as in everyone), while "worldly problems" are another. I am determined? Seems that U cannot look around Urself and see... Believe U are using electricity that is produced not by mantras or yagas . Etc. > "U said that diet - material food we take into our gross bodies - > effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism." > > No. it is an explanation of how what do we do, think, say, believe > or ingest will influence the functioning of our astral body and thus > our ability to recognize our divine nature. If someone has the ability of recognition of Divine, that is not influenced by food, saying or act. For the simple reason that consciousness in not a mechanical thing. If U get a bit of authentic spiritual experience U will understand what i say not. Till it is a theory, no use to continue. Our so-called material > body functions as it does because of our karmic blockages to > the unimpeded flow of prana to and in the chakras and because > of the blockages that we dissolve or create through how we > conduct our life. There is nothing material about the 'material > body': it is energy flow only and it is our responsibility to optimize that prana flow through our physical and mental actions. Astral body and prana are material as well . Consciousness is totally different. If vegetarianism indeed brings spiritual transformation, most of indians would be at least good upasakas. But i`ve witnessed they are not. > "Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind." > > In what is the world real, if its physcial laws can be suspended > by those who are Self-Realized? The world is an illusion and it is > our responsibility to find how the illusion is created. We have no perfect and complete understanding of physical laws. This is the reason to suspend. However many siddhas realised the world as real. And this is what Revelation states. To concider the world to be illusion is a very dangerous thing in fact - for Ur soul. However sometimes it may also help as one of upayas. > "Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have > spiritual meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal > meaning." > > Your claiming that there is no literal meaning in these so-called > myths does not make it so. You need to understand what was > being communicated and how. You need to perfom sadhana to > enable yourself to understand. Without that effort it is useless > for you to argue just as it is useless for someone who has never > taken a piano lesson to expect to entertain the world as a concert > pianist. If U are so sure that i`ve got no experience while U have, no problem. Just provide explanation for those myths mentioned, that too illumine us how it has literally happened . > But take Chinnamasta, for example, who cuts off her own head. If > we cut off our head, do we die? No, everything about you > continues except that particular physcial body which will > eventually be replaced with another physcial body until such time > as a physcial body is no longer required. This is Chinnamasta's > message to her attendents. The message is given graphically in > a very dense and gross form so that people such as you have > the opportunity to understand it. This is Ur own invented explanation of this LOL. Anyway, i didn`t say myths or symbols have no sense (!); i say they are to be understood as they are, and not as actual facts of history or literally existing "somewhere". Hope U are able to grasp that GOD is not "four-handed", "three-headed" or "riding a bull"? ) Love is the law, love under will. A. > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > 93 > > > > First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly > with > > scientific methods - it is obvious. > > This is no how connected with senses/ego stuff . > > Sadhana matters are totally different. Faith in God, Love, > awareness > > are not worldly. As Shastra says, "Prema sthitir alaukaki". > > This topic started from diet, do u recall? What u said is a view > of a > > materialist . U said that diet - material food we take into our > > gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism. > Now u > > turn the case up-side-down . I just wanna set the matter as it > is. > > > > Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind. This was in > fact > > realised by many saints of India. Just so called > "advaita-vedanta" > > became for some reasons more popular. > > > > Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have > spiritual > > meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning > LOL. > > Do U believe that Krishna in fact lifted a mountain? That > Indra`s body > > was once covered with vulvas? That Ravana had 10 heads? > > > > Lets continue with scriptures . Have u read Shiva-svarodaya? > Try out > > it! Is the depiction of foetus growth in Garbhopanishat exact? > What > > about fantastic history that we find in Puranas? > > Are the stupid and cruel prescriptions of > Manavadharma-shastra also > > spiritual? > > What about greatness of vedic samhitas? Have u read Vedas > BTW? Very > > interesting. In Rigveda we find a hymn to frogs (!) and a hymn > for > > return of cow flocks LOL. In Atharvaveda 3rd hymn is against > urine- > > blocking! Then we get a hymn for big penis to grow, a hymn for > > pissing, a hymn to destroy someone`s virile strenght etc. > > Hope no need to continue LOL. > > Is all this crap "divine revelation"? Or just mythological stuff? > > > > Why brahmans invented a prohibition to eat cow meat? Before > they ate > > it. Vedas are the proof. Why it is prohibited to copulate with ur > wife > > during her menses? Why it is "impure" to take food from > "shudra"? > > Do these things have great spiritual base or only mythologic? > > > > "Sati", an ugly and cruel custom, sprouted out from myth. This > is just > > one point to show how mythological mind is dangerous... > > > > So... If u want to continue, ok, come on. > > > > > > > > , "omprem" > <omprem> wrote: > > > > > > "Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. But > what > > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths?" > > > > > > > > > Those 'myths' are only 'myths' to people like you who have > been > > > given a spiritual lobotomy by the press relations department > of > > > the scientific communtity. You have mistakenly bought into > the > > > so-called evidence of your senses because it gave your ego > a > > > sense of control and you ceded your independence to a > closed > > > shop scientific guild. > > > > > > On the other hand, those who have deconditioned > themselves > > > through sadhana perceive the wisdom of the ancients and > > > continue employ those ancient findings in their daily lives. > > > > > > Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears > to > > > hear will hear. Keep up your sadhana and one day you too > will > > > recognize the illusion playing out before us and you will know > the > > > wisdom of the ancients. > > > > > > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Arjuna > Taradasa" > > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > > > Yet AC was very scientific and sceptic in his approach - that > > > can be > > > > seen from his writings. > > > > > > > > Science in fact does have it`s limitations; but is has it`s > realm > > > as > > > > well. Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. > > > But what > > > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths? > > > > We have to differentiate between spiritual path and coomon > > > life: for > > > > meditation it is useful to percieve everything as > manifestation > > > of > > > > consciousness, but for physical needs we usually have to > > > make physical > > > > efforts. > > > > Whatever some people here say against modern science, > > > nevertheless > > > > they still use electricity, transport, computers... They could > > have > > > > tried "mythological means" to travel to distant places, chant > > > several > > > > billion times some kind of bhucharisiddhiprapti-mantra or > use > > > magical > > > > ointment LOL, but in spite of this they use technologies > based > > > upon > > > > science. Why? > > > > > > > > > > > > , Lili Masamura > > > <sephirah5> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Actually, Swami Paramahansa Shivaji, (also known as > > > > > "Aleister Crowley') says much the same thing in his > > > > > incredible book "Yoga". There really IS nothing else > > > > > BUT the observer and the observed and the interaction; > > > > > there is nothing else to consider! > > > > > Lilith M. > > > > > --- SophiasHeaven@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/13/2004 9:24:53 AM Mountain > > > > > > Daylight Time, > > > > > > omprem writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how effective is the scientific method? It > > > > > > uses flawed and > > > > > > > inadequate senses and an outward orientation, > > > > > > both of which > > > > > > > contain the seeds of the limitations of the > > > > > > scientific method. > > > > > > > There is nothing scientific about much of the > > > > > > 'science' being > > > > > > > conducted to day with our tax dollars. Most of it > > > > > > is a job-creation > > > > > > > scam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now they are saying, according to quantum > > > > > > physics and the idea of > > > > > > INTENT, that scientists get the results they are > > > > > > looking for when doing > > > > > > experiments. This could account for the varied test > > > > > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than try to explain this myself, I"ll quote > > > > > > this excerpt from the > > > > > > writings of a Theoretical Quantum Physicist, Fred > > > > > > Alan Wolf, in "The Spiritual > > > > > > Universe: one physicist's vision of spirit, soul, > > > > > > matter, and self: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Desire, through our powers of observation, > > > > > > actually modifies and > > > > > > alters the course of the physical world, causing > > > > > > things to occur that would not > > > > > > normally occur if they were not desired." > > > > > > The Quantum Watched Pot > > > > > > > > > > > > "How does desire affect the physical world? Intent > > > > > > operates in the physical > > > > > > world by altering the observed state of the world. > > > > > > The fact that intent > > > > > > affects the physical world refelcts a recent > > > > > > discovery by quantum physicists Yakir > > > > > > Aharonov and M. Vardi that has received experimental > > > > > > verification by Wayne > > > > > > Itano and his colleagues. Aharonov and Vardi have > > > > > > shown that the old proverb 'a > > > > > > watched pot never boils' may have a range of > > > > > > validity previously unsuspected. > > > > > > They hae discovered a paradoxical situation that > > > > > > arises when a quantum system > > > > > > is watched carefully. As they put it: > > > > > > If one checks by continuous > > > > > > observations, if a given quantum > > > > > > > > > > > > system evolves from some initial > > > > > > state to some other final > > > > > > state > > > > > > along a specific trajectory... the > > > > > > result is always positive, > > > > > > whether > > > > > > or not the system would have done so > > > > > > on its own accord. > > > > > > > > > > > > "If a quantum system is monitored > > > > > > continuously, we couls say > > > > > > vigilantly, it will do practically anything. For > > > > > > example ... > > > > > > " ... the decay of an unstable system. On > > > > > > its own the system would > > > > > > decay in a few microseconds. But if it is watched > > > > > > continuosly, it will never > > > > > > decay. All vigilantly watched "quantum pots" never > > > > > > boil, even they they are > > > > > > heated forever. ... ... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > "This implies there is a deep connection between the > > > > > > observer and the > > > > > > observed. So deep, in fact, that we really cannot > > > > > > separate them. All we can do is > > > > > > alter the way we experience reality. This is where > > > > > > intent comes in" (pp. > > > > > > 217-218) > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, there you have it: scientific objectivity has a > > > > > > BIG hole in it, otherwise > > > > > > called, the intent of the observer ( the scientist ) > > > > > > to get the results > > > > > > he/she is predisposed to watch for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Cathie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > > > > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > > > > http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 In a message dated 10/16/2004 11:28:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, bhagatirtha writes: > Astral body and prana are material as well . Consciousness is > totally different. > Fred Alan Wolf, the Quantum Physicist and Consciousness explorer, says humans are "Quantum Systems" -- this means we respond to intent. This means we are, to the extent our intent is weak, subject to influece by what others see of us. This supposedly explains why, for example, a teacher who sees intelligence in every student has a superior ability to evoke the intelligence in every student, while if a young person is surrounded by people who project that he/she is dumb, will begin to think of himself that way, and if a teacher treats her students this way, she will not get very good results. It is the scientific explanation for what we have called "the self fulfilling prophecy" in which what we believe about others we are close to, we are able to somehow "make happen" -- Our beliefs have the power to influence our reality in very interesting ways. At least up to a point. Of course, each individual has his/her OWN intent, so it is not a simple matter of the intent of just one only. The more conscious we are, the less we are influenced by what others are inclined to think of us, and project onto us. Peace, Cathie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 I give thanks to God that your participation in this thread is over. It was getting a bit tedious having to deal with someone like yourself who is content to remain willfully ignorant. Omprem , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > In fact i`m fed up LOL. U, "Omprem", are unwilling not only to > understand but even to DISCUSS properly . Each of Ur mesages is a > proof. Again i get no exact answers from U, only general remarks. > Did U notice Urself that U ignored a half of my message? > Discussing in this manner is useless, i`m sorry. U are the good > example of unscientific approach that leads to nothing but baseless > self-confidence... > > This is my last reply to U i hope . I perfectly understand that U > will not have any benefit from it; thus i write only for others to > read. > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > "First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly > > with scientific methods"> > > > > You seem determined or unable to understand. Worldly > > problems are solved through sadhana. That 'eureka' moment > > that your beloved scientists aspire to is the result of fheir > > consciousness taking on the vibration of particular chakras and > > so gaining access to information not ordinarily available to them. > > What is the internal reason of some scientific understanding is one > thing (u may speculate about chakra stuff - having no realization of > it; in any case it is consciousness, Chiti, working in scientists as > well as in everyone), while "worldly problems" are another. > I am determined? Seems that U cannot look around Urself and see... > Believe U are using electricity that is produced not by mantras or > yagas . Etc. > > > "U said that diet - material food we take into our gross bodies - > > effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism." > > > > No. it is an explanation of how what do we do, think, say, believe > > or ingest will influence the functioning of our astral body and thus > > our ability to recognize our divine nature. > > If someone has the ability of recognition of Divine, that is not > influenced by food, saying or act. For the simple reason that > consciousness in not a mechanical thing. > If U get a bit of authentic spiritual experience U will understand > what i say not. Till it is a theory, no use to continue. > > Our so-called material > > body functions as it does because of our karmic blockages to > > the unimpeded flow of prana to and in the chakras and because > > of the blockages that we dissolve or create through how we > > conduct our life. There is nothing material about the 'material > > body': it is energy flow only and it is our responsibility to > optimize that prana flow through our physical and mental actions. > > Astral body and prana are material as well . Consciousness is > totally different. > If vegetarianism indeed brings spiritual transformation, most of > indians would be at least good upasakas. But i`ve witnessed they are > not. > > > "Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind." > > > > In what is the world real, if its physcial laws can be suspended > > by those who are Self-Realized? The world is an illusion and it is > > our responsibility to find how the illusion is created. > > We have no perfect and complete understanding of physical laws. This > is the reason to suspend. However many siddhas realised the world as > real. And this is what Revelation states. > To concider the world to be illusion is a very dangerous thing in fact > - for Ur soul. However sometimes it may also help as one of upayas. > > > "Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have > > spiritual meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal > > meaning." > > > > Your claiming that there is no literal meaning in these so-called > > myths does not make it so. You need to understand what was > > being communicated and how. You need to perfom sadhana to > > enable yourself to understand. Without that effort it is useless > > for you to argue just as it is useless for someone who has never > > taken a piano lesson to expect to entertain the world as a concert > > pianist. > > If U are so sure that i`ve got no experience while U have, no problem. > Just provide explanation for those myths mentioned, that too illumine > us how it has literally happened . > > > But take Chinnamasta, for example, who cuts off her own head. If > > we cut off our head, do we die? No, everything about you > > continues except that particular physcial body which will > > eventually be replaced with another physcial body until such time > > as a physcial body is no longer required. This is Chinnamasta's > > message to her attendents. The message is given graphically in > > a very dense and gross form so that people such as you have > > the opportunity to understand it. > > This is Ur own invented explanation of this LOL. Anyway, i didn`t say > myths or symbols have no sense (!); i say they are to be understood as > they are, and not as actual facts of history or literally existing > "somewhere". > Hope U are able to grasp that GOD is not "four-handed", "three-headed" > or "riding a bull"? ) > > Love is the law, love under will. > A. > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > First of all, u again try to mix two separate things. Sadhana is > > > spiritual, scince is worldly. Worldly problems are solved mostly > > with > > > scientific methods - it is obvious. > > > This is no how connected with senses/ego stuff . > > > Sadhana matters are totally different. Faith in God, Love, > > awareness > > > are not worldly. As Shastra says, "Prema sthitir alaukaki". > > > This topic started from diet, do u recall? What u said is a view > > of a > > > materialist . U said that diet - material food we take into our > > > gross bodies - effect our SPIRITUALITY. This is materialism. > > Now u > > > turn the case up-side-down . I just wanna set the matter as it > > is. > > > > > > Secondly, world is REAL. Illusion is set in mind. This was in > > fact > > > realised by many saints of India. Just so called > > "advaita-vedanta" > > > became for some reasons more popular. > > > > > > Thirdly, myths are myths. Of course, some ot `em indeed have > > spiritual > > > meaning - if u`ve got clues to understand. Not literal meaning > > LOL. > > > Do U believe that Krishna in fact lifted a mountain? That > > Indra`s body > > > was once covered with vulvas? That Ravana had 10 heads? > > > > > > Lets continue with scriptures . Have u read Shiva-svarodaya? > > Try out > > > it! Is the depiction of foetus growth in Garbhopanishat exact? > > What > > > about fantastic history that we find in Puranas? > > > Are the stupid and cruel prescriptions of > > Manavadharma-shastra also > > > spiritual? > > > What about greatness of vedic samhitas? Have u read Vedas > > BTW? Very > > > interesting. In Rigveda we find a hymn to frogs (!) and a hymn > > for > > > return of cow flocks LOL. In Atharvaveda 3rd hymn is against > > urine- > > > blocking! Then we get a hymn for big penis to grow, a hymn for > > > pissing, a hymn to destroy someone`s virile strenght etc. > > > Hope no need to continue LOL. > > > Is all this crap "divine revelation"? Or just mythological stuff? > > > > > > Why brahmans invented a prohibition to eat cow meat? Before > > they ate > > > it. Vedas are the proof. Why it is prohibited to copulate with ur > > wife > > > during her menses? Why it is "impure" to take food from > > "shudra"? > > > Do these things have great spiritual base or only mythologic? > > > > > > "Sati", an ugly and cruel custom, sprouted out from myth. This > > is just > > > one point to show how mythological mind is dangerous... > > > > > > So... If u want to continue, ok, come on. > > > > > > > > > > > > , "omprem" > > <omprem> wrote: > > > > > > > > "Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. But > > what > > > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Those 'myths' are only 'myths' to people like you who have > > been > > > > given a spiritual lobotomy by the press relations department > > of > > > > the scientific communtity. You have mistakenly bought into > > the > > > > so-called evidence of your senses because it gave your ego > > a > > > > sense of control and you ceded your independence to a > > closed > > > > shop scientific guild. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, those who have deconditioned > > themselves > > > > through sadhana perceive the wisdom of the ancients and > > > > continue employ those ancient findings in their daily lives. > > > > > > > > Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears > > to > > > > hear will hear. Keep up your sadhana and one day you too > > will > > > > recognize the illusion playing out before us and you will know > > the > > > > wisdom of the ancients. > > > > > > > > > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Arjuna > > Taradasa" > > > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > > > > > Yet AC was very scientific and sceptic in his approach - that > > > > can be > > > > > seen from his writings. > > > > > > > > > > Science in fact does have it`s limitations; but is has it`s > > realm > > > > as > > > > > well. Ancient people had mythology - that is undestandable. > > > > But what > > > > > is the use now to reject science and rely on myths? > > > > > We have to differentiate between spiritual path and coomon > > > > life: for > > > > > meditation it is useful to percieve everything as > > manifestation > > > > of > > > > > consciousness, but for physical needs we usually have to > > > > make physical > > > > > efforts. > > > > > Whatever some people here say against modern science, > > > > nevertheless > > > > > they still use electricity, transport, computers... They could > > > have > > > > > tried "mythological means" to travel to distant places, chant > > > > several > > > > > billion times some kind of bhucharisiddhiprapti-mantra or > > use > > > > magical > > > > > ointment LOL, but in spite of this they use technologies > > based > > > > upon > > > > > science. Why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Lili Masamura > > > > <sephirah5> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Actually, Swami Paramahansa Shivaji, (also known as > > > > > > "Aleister Crowley') says much the same thing in his > > > > > > incredible book "Yoga". There really IS nothing else > > > > > > BUT the observer and the observed and the interaction; > > > > > > there is nothing else to consider! > > > > > > Lilith M. > > > > > > --- SophiasHeaven@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/13/2004 9:24:53 AM Mountain > > > > > > > Daylight Time, > > > > > > > omprem writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how effective is the scientific method? It > > > > > > > uses flawed and > > > > > > > > inadequate senses and an outward orientation, > > > > > > > both of which > > > > > > > > contain the seeds of the limitations of the > > > > > > > scientific method. > > > > > > > > There is nothing scientific about much of the > > > > > > > 'science' being > > > > > > > > conducted to day with our tax dollars. Most of it > > > > > > > is a job-creation > > > > > > > > scam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now they are saying, according to quantum > > > > > > > physics and the idea of > > > > > > > INTENT, that scientists get the results they are > > > > > > > looking for when doing > > > > > > > experiments. This could account for the varied test > > > > > > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than try to explain this myself, I"ll quote > > > > > > > this excerpt from the > > > > > > > writings of a Theoretical Quantum Physicist, Fred > > > > > > > Alan Wolf, in "The Spiritual > > > > > > > Universe: one physicist's vision of spirit, soul, > > > > > > > matter, and self: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Desire, through our powers of observation, > > > > > > > actually modifies and > > > > > > > alters the course of the physical world, causing > > > > > > > things to occur that would not > > > > > > > normally occur if they were not desired." > > > > > > > The Quantum Watched Pot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "How does desire affect the physical world? Intent > > > > > > > operates in the physical > > > > > > > world by altering the observed state of the world. > > > > > > > The fact that intent > > > > > > > affects the physical world refelcts a recent > > > > > > > discovery by quantum physicists Yakir > > > > > > > Aharonov and M. Vardi that has received experimental > > > > > > > verification by Wayne > > > > > > > Itano and his colleagues. Aharonov and Vardi have > > > > > > > shown that the old proverb 'a > > > > > > > watched pot never boils' may have a range of > > > > > > > validity previously unsuspected. > > > > > > > They hae discovered a paradoxical situation that > > > > > > > arises when a quantum system > > > > > > > is watched carefully. As they put it: > > > > > > > If one checks by continuous > > > > > > > observations, if a given quantum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system evolves from some initial > > > > > > > state to some other final > > > > > > > state > > > > > > > along a specific trajectory... the > > > > > > > result is always positive, > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > or not the system would have done so > > > > > > > on its own accord. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If a quantum system is monitored > > > > > > > continuously, we couls say > > > > > > > vigilantly, it will do practically anything. For > > > > > > > example ... > > > > > > > " ... the decay of an unstable system. On > > > > > > > its own the system would > > > > > > > decay in a few microseconds. But if it is watched > > > > > > > continuosly, it will never > > > > > > > decay. All vigilantly watched "quantum pots" never > > > > > > > boil, even they they are > > > > > > > heated forever. ... ... > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > "This implies there is a deep connection between the > > > > > > > observer and the > > > > > > > observed. So deep, in fact, that we really cannot > > > > > > > separate them. All we can do is > > > > > > > alter the way we experience reality. This is where > > > > > > > intent comes in" (pp. > > > > > > > 217-218) > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, there you have it: scientific objectivity has a > > > > > > > BIG hole in it, otherwise > > > > > > > called, the intent of the observer ( the scientist ) > > > > > > > to get the results > > > > > > > he/she is predisposed to watch for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > Cathie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > > > > > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > > > > > http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.