Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Old sciences of living energy In older sciences, the organic approach is less compromised. Life is explicitly defined as nature's expression of an underlying consciousness, in microcosmic personality and macrocosmic world. Old sciences of medicine thus consider health as a dynamic equilibrium, in the co-ordination of our bodily and sensual and mental functioning. A healthy functioning is one that maintains a harmonious balance, between disturbing tendencies towards imbalance and corruption. In India, Ayurvedic medicine describes disease as an imbalance of three 'doshas' or 'faults'. Each is a fault when aggravated excessively. And health is sought by restoring their natural balance in a patient's constitution. In European medicine, there is a similar conception of four 'humours'. Quite like the Ayurvedic doshas, the European humours are described as differently emphasized in our natural differences of personal constitution. And these same humours are similarly taken to be shown imbalanced, when manifested in disease. As conceived in ancient disciplines of ritual practice, the entire universe is animated biologically. Here, it is not objects that give rise to movement. Instead, it is the other way around. Each object is considered as a crude appearance of more subtle energy that is essentially alive. In Sanskrit, the universe is simply called 'jagat' or 'moving'. It's thus described to be made up of animated movement, which inherently expresses consciousness. That animated universe can't be described as a mere structure, made up of objects or events. It is conceived more adequately as a living cosmos, with a generic mind. Our microcosmic personalities take part in that living cosmos, which they observe and describe from their different points of view. Because of these differing perspectives, our representations of the cosmos are quite different. But its generic mind is shared in common by us all, at that underlying depth of knowing which stays present through the changes of appearance. In this conception, it is acknowledged that our bodies and minds are limited at the surface of particular attention. But it is also considered that each limited person has an inward access to the whole generic mind and to its unlimited potential, which is expressed in all happenings throughout the universe. This is the reasoning behind old ritual practices. They are taken to evoke subtle powers from an inner depth of mind that is shared in common, by each of our microcosms and by the macrocosm as a whole. In a ritual act, the shape and quality of action is conceived to produce a particular effect -- through an awakened flow of subtle energy that is drawn up, into the living faculties of a ritual practitioner. That awakened flow is described in the science of 'pranayama' or 'living energy control'. Here, a human body is conceived as manifesting an organic system of energy currents. The system is centred upon a vertical axis, which rises through the spine and goes up to the top of the head. Along the axis, there are nodes called 'cakras' or 'centres', where branching currents originate. The bottom-most node is the 'muladhara cakra' or the 'root support centre'. Here, it is conceived that an infinite energy lies usually dormant, like a coiled up serpent in a covered hole. That energy is called 'kundalini' or 'coiled'. From it arise three channels that proceed up the vertical axis, to feed the cakras or the nodal centres above. Two of the channels are limited, as they produce the limited life and activities of a particular body in the world. One of these channels is called 'pingala' or 'tawny'. It carries an effective energy that drives the body's movements in the world. The other channel is called 'ida' or 'refreshing'. It carries an affective energy that enables sensation and perception. Between these two limited channels, a central channel is conceived to be unlimited. It is called 'sushumna' or 'gracious'. It is a channel of spiritual grace, with an unlimited capacity to carry the infinite energy called 'kundalini' In most people, that infinite energy is very little used. Almost all of it stays dormant -- as its central channel is blocked off, by the disharmony and dissipation that makes energy seem limited, in our habituated bodies. However, it is also considered that body and mind can get better tuned and harmonized -- through purity of ethical conduct and character, through practices of balanced posture and breath control, through concentration of attention, and through clarity of thought and depth of feeling. In the course of such psychosomatic tuning, it is conceived that the central channel can be opened up; so that the unlimited energy of kundalini uncoils itself and rises up through a series of seven cakras, where a variety of subtle powers are progressively made manifest. All disciplines of ritual are conceived to work through this kind of psychosomatic tuning. The tuning is both microcosmic and macrocosmic. It is meant to harmonize the microcosmic actions of a living person, who functions in a macrocosmic world. As ritual acts draw power from the depth of mind, they imply a dual functioning. A living person functions microcosmically, in conjunction with a corresponding macrocosm that is seen outside. That correspondence, of macrocosm and microcosm, is investigated in the science of astrology. When the universe is seen at large, in the constellations of the sky, it naturally manifests a macrocosmic order, which is taken to express the same unlimited potential that is found manifested in our microcosmic bodies. The stars and the planets are thus interpreted biologically, as macrocosmic signs of living potencies that subtly influence our microcosmic lives. The influence comes from a generic depth of mind that each microcosm shares in common with the entire universe. In this biological interpretation, the stars and planets do not act mechanically, as objects that exert some external force upon our physical or mental actions. Our lives are not here conceived as driven from outside, by distant bodies in the sky. Instead, the movements of the planets and the stars are taken to be meaningful expressions, which speak to us of living potencies that influence our personalities and circumstances from within. The movements of stars and planets are described mechanically, through astronomical calculations that are used to tabulate the almanac and to draw up a horoscope. But, as astrological configurations are interpreted, a reflective reasoning becomes essential, in order to apply the formal calculations to a living situation. Astrology is thus a different kind of science from modern physics. It cannot be tested and applied mechanically, through external instruments and machines. It can only be tested and applied through the educated faculties of a living astrologer. Those faculties can sometimes be tested by using them to predict particular events, but the prediction is never just mechanical. It is always achieved through a living interpretation that is being put to test, so as to uncover and to clarify misunderstanding. Moreover, it is quite explicitly conceived that astrology cannot be applied through prediction, in the way that our mechanical descriptions are applied. For example, when a bridge is being built, a mechanical description works by predicting the breaking stress of various structural components. This enables engineers to calculate an optimal design, which makes the best use of available materials. But astrological descriptions are not meant for engineering. They are not meant to calculate the design of artificial structures and machines, whose operation has been separated from our living faculties. The descriptions of astrology are meant to work quite differently -- by revealing the organic order of a natural universe, in which our living faculties take part. Astrological descriptions are thus meant to be applied organically -- so as to harmonize and clarify the living actions, thoughts and feelings of our bodies and our minds, in their journey through the world. This organic application is described by the Sanskrit word 'prashna', which means both 'problem' and 'enquiry'. It implies a pragmatic investigation into problems that have arisen. And the investigation goes on to ask how those problems could be resolved. An astrologer thus uses a questioning investigation to determine what actions and rituals are appropriate and when they are best performed, in the course of individual life. In Sanskrit, the science of astrology is called 'jyotisha'. It is the science of 'jyoti' or 'light'. Astronomically, an objective light is seen, shining from the stars and reflected by the planets. But astrologically, all outward light seen shining in the sky is understood to manifest an inner light that shines subjectively, from a common background of all physical and mental experience. As an astrologer interprets macrocosmic patterns in the sky, there is a reflection back -- into a common depth of mind from which our individual lives and circumstances are conceived to arise, in their variety of different situations. The reflection works through a logical analysis of various living potencies that are seen manifested in the sky -- through stars and planets showing regularity and change, in their various constellations and conjunctions. The use of this analysis is educational. It is meant to sharpen an astrologer's judgements and intuitions about living individuals, in the various situations that arise and develop in the course of their lives. It's only thus, through a delicately educated judgement, that an astrologer can make predictions and suggest effective actions which are helpful to particular individuals, in their different journeys through the world.The next posting will go on to describe the humanities, as educating sciences of recorded and communicated information.Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Sri Anandaji, very nice post again. Thanks for your response in the other thread. It is not completely clear to me, but we can let it stand there. I have a few questions on our biological conception of the universe and one being trying to understand its organic interrelation with the rest. 1. Is this the same basis for the Vedic rituals, chants, mantras? When we invoke the fire as a deity Agni, what exactly is being done? Is Agni a conscious Being, or are we addressing the potency of the universal Consciousness through a certain channel? 2. In science, two people doing the same experiment ought to get the same result, to derive a conclusion. Correct? In this organic approach, which includes the subject's intuitive capacity, this is not possible. Some times it seems to work, sometimes not. How do we decide on the veracity of such claims, as " this star-constellation means that " ? Is all this to be taken as shabda-pramana? 3. At some point can you address whether the enlightenment of a scientist or mathematician, after deep meditation upon a problem, is the same as that of a Rishi seeking jnana? What " gives " the knowledge in the two cases, etc? Thanks. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > > Old sciences of living energy > > As conceived in ancient disciplines of ritual practice, the entire > universe is animated biologically. Here, it is not objects that give > rise to movement. Instead, it is the other way around. Each object is > considered as a crude appearance of more subtle energy that is > essentially alive. In Sanskrit, the universe is simply called 'jagat' or > 'moving'. It's thus described to be made up of animated movement, which > inherently expresses consciousness. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Namaste Shri thollmelukaalkizhu, In message #40886, Wed Jun 25, you ask three questions about a "biological conception of the universe and one being trying to understand its organic interrelation with the rest". Let me take these questions one by one. 1. Is this the same basis for the Vedic rituals, chants, mantras? When we invoke the fire as a deity Agni, what exactly is being done? Is Agni a conscious Being, or are we addressing the potency of the universal Consciousness through a certain channel? Yes indeed, the living energy called 'prana' is the basis on which Vedic rituals, chants and mantras are practised. When fire is invoked as a deity called 'Agni', there Agni is conceived as a conscious being who is manifested in both microcosmic personality and macrocosmic world. The manifestation has thus two aspects: one displayed in some little-seeming personality, and the other in a larger-seeming world. But, in either case, what's manifested is the same reality of underlying consciousness, found in each one of our many personalities and in their containing universe. One living energy of nature is found manifested everywhere -- in each of our personalities and at each location that our personalities perceive, throughout the entire world. Whatever form of address we may use, what we address is a single reality of unmixed knowing from which all manifested happenings are found inspired. What's being done is exactly an expression of that being which is knowing in itself, beneath all seeming changes which appear thereby expressed. 2. In science, two people doing the same experiment ought to get the same result, to derive a conclusion. Correct? In this organic approach, which includes the subject's intuitive capacity, this is not possible. Some times it seems to work, sometimes not. How do we decide on the veracity of such claims, as "this star-constellation means that"? Is all this to be taken as shabda-pramana?Yes, I agree with you that science must be aimed at impersonal conclusions which are the same for everyone. But no, I do not agree that such an impersonal conclusion is impossible in an organic approach. Without some way of looking for impersonal conclusions, there cannot be any scientific enquiry. Far from abandoning impersonal conclusions, they have to be sought more deeply and more subtly, in the organic sciences. There are in fact two different ways of approaching impersonality, in our mechanical and our organic sciences: A mechanical science is outwardly tested and applied -- by the use of mechanical instruments whose construction is externally standardized, through industrial and social and cultural institutions in the external world. An organic science is inwardly tested and applied -- by an educating reflection back into an underlying depth of mind, where a common and continued knowing is internally detached from the superficial differences and changes of our bodily and sensual and mental personalities.In the example you mention, of reading a horoscope, what's meant by a star-constellation cannot be verified through any test that is merely mechanical. Instead, it has to be tested by a reflective reasoning, which must go deeply back into the living faculties of a dispassionate astrologer. And two astrologers may thus agree, by reaching a depth of dispassion that they share in common, beneath their personal differences. 3. At some point can you address whether the enlightenment of a scientist or mathematician, after deep meditation upon a problem, is the same as that of a Rishi seeking jnana? What "gives" the knowledge in the two cases, etc? What binds our actions and obscures our vision is attachment, to partial objects of outward perception. What frees and enlightens is detachment, through a reflection of attention and investigation back into that depth of knowing which continues unaffected through all seeming change. Thus, freedom and enlightenment are found reflectively, in all our various sciences and in the everyday world. Returning back into the changeless depth of knowing, the same enlightenment is found, irrespective of which path the reflection has passed through. Wherever one kind of 'enlightenment' is found in any way different from another, there the reflection is shown incomplete -- and some further reflection is thus needed. True knowledge must be found in itself, not in the least bit 'given' by anything else, completely beyond all the variety of ways that have been sought to 'give' on to it. This is what makes the search for it so paradoxical, to our persuading and believing and investigating minds. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Anandaji, Thanks for the excellent replies. I will have to digest #3 a bit, and in #1, whether the " little-seeming personality " (I take this to mean like a conscious willing deity/super-jiva) is necessary to affirm, with fire, etc that " seem " as part of prakrithi. Is it really affirmed that way, or is it more symbolic of the general mithya seen in a particular manifestation of consciousness? However these can be pondered later. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > > Namaste Shri thollmelukaalkizhu, > > In message #40886, Wed Jun 25, you ask three questions about a > " biological conception of the universe and one being trying to > understand its organic interrelation with the rest " . Let me take these > questions one by one. > > 1. Is this the same basis for the Vedic rituals, chants, mantras? When > we invoke the fire as a deity Agni, what exactly is being done? Is Agni > a conscious Being, or are we addressing the potency of the universal > Consciousness through a certain channel? > > Yes indeed, the living energy called 'prana' is the basis on which Vedic > rituals, chants and mantras are practised. When fire is invoked as a > deity called 'Agni', there Agni is conceived as a conscious being who is > manifested in both microcosmic personality and macrocosmic world. > > The manifestation has thus two aspects: one displayed in some > little-seeming personality, and the other in a larger-seeming world. > But, in either case, what's manifested is the same reality of underlying > consciousness, found in each one of our many personalities and in their > containing universe. > > One living energy of nature is found manifested everywhere -- in each of > our personalities and at each location that our personalities perceive, > throughout the entire world. Whatever form of address we may use, what > we address is a single reality of unmixed knowing from which all > manifested happenings are found inspired. > > What's being done is exactly an expression of that being which is > knowing in itself, beneath all seeming changes which appear thereby > expressed. > > 2. In science, two people doing the same experiment ought to get the > same result, to derive a conclusion. Correct? In this organic approach, > which includes the subject's intuitive capacity, this is not possible. > Some times it seems to work, sometimes not. How do we decide on the > veracity of such claims, as " this star-constellation means that " ? Is all > this to be taken as shabda-pramana? > Yes, I agree with you that science must be aimed at impersonal > conclusions which are the same for everyone. But no, I do not agree that > such an impersonal conclusion is impossible in an organic approach. > Without some way of looking for impersonal conclusions, there cannot be > any scientific enquiry. Far from abandoning impersonal conclusions, they > have to be sought more deeply and more subtly, in the organic sciences. > There are in fact two different ways of approaching impersonality, in > our mechanical and our organic sciences: > * > A mechanical science is outwardly tested and applied -- by the use of > mechanical instruments whose construction is externally standardized, > through industrial and social and cultural institutions in the external > world. > * > An organic science is inwardly tested and applied -- by an educating > reflection back into an underlying depth of mind, where a common and > continued knowing is internally detached from the superficial > differences and changes of our bodily and sensual and mental > personalities. > > In the example you mention, of reading a horoscope, what's meant by a > star-constellation cannot be verified through any test that is merely > mechanical. Instead, it has to be tested by a reflective reasoning, > which must go deeply back into the living faculties of a dispassionate > astrologer. And two astrologers may thus agree, by reaching a depth of > dispassion that they share in common, beneath their personal > differences. > 3. At some point can you address whether the enlightenment of a > scientist or mathematician, after deep meditation upon a problem, is the > same as that of a Rishi seeking jnana? What " gives " the knowledge in the > two cases, etc? > > What binds our actions and obscures our vision is attachment, to partial > objects of outward perception. What frees and enlightens is detachment, > through a reflection of attention and investigation back into that depth > of knowing which continues unaffected through all seeming change. > > Thus, freedom and enlightenment are found reflectively, in all our > various sciences and in the everyday world. Returning back into the > changeless depth of knowing, the same enlightenment is found, > irrespective of which path the reflection has passed through. Wherever > one kind of 'enlightenment' is found in any way different from another, > there the reflection is shown incomplete -- and some further reflection > is thus needed. > > True knowledge must be found in itself, not in the least bit 'given' by > anything else, completely beyond all the variety of ways that have been > sought to 'give' on to it. This is what makes the search for it so > paradoxical, to our persuading and believing and investigating minds. > > Ananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Anandaji, you said: " There are in fact two different ways of approaching impersonality, in our mechanical and our organic sciences......... ...... An organic science is inwardly tested and applied -- by an educating reflection back into an underlying depth of mind, where a common and continued knowing is internally detached from the superficial differences and changes of our bodily and sensual and mental personalities. " While this is true, the only " knower " in this case can be the one who has access to the entire thing you describe as " mind " , or in other words, a jnAni. For that matter, the term 'person' is not defined in the organic view of things, neither is individuality between 'scientists'. Since, from the organic point of view, the entire Universe is one energy, the concept of " my mind " and " your mind " does not exist; the concept of " my observation " and " your observation " does not exist and as a result " impersonality " also does not exist. The only way anything can be impersonal is when the person who is observing dissolves in the observation, or there is unity throughout all " entities " (which itself isnt a right term here) involved. If I am understanding things rightly, this is one very big difference in " impersonality " in mechanical and organic worlds. Pranam, and thanks for such a nice, refreshing thread. ~Vaibhav. Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite group at http://in.promos./groups/ 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.