Kundalini/Chakras/science

[Guest guest]

Tim wrote:

 

<< I'm reading another fascinating book (they seem to find ME!) about

the theory of the Chakras and the awakening of Kundalini. Apparently a

scientist named Dr. Hiroshi Motoyama has conducted a series of

scientific experiments in these areas. Kundalini has been shown, at the

physical level, to be a manifestation of a higher voltage of electricity

conducted through the nervous system, resulting in a wider range of

activity of various bodily systems and heightened awareness and

capabilities. Also, clear electro-physiological evidence of the network

of chakras and nadis which form the infrastructure of the "subtle body"

and underlie and activate the physical body has also been demonstrated.

These discoveries

await further experimentation. >>

 

They are many kinds of 'scientific', like in one hundred years there

will probably be many kinds of nonduals

 

There is the nondual scientific, the idealistic one, the engineering one

and the technician one, to name a few categories. Most of the ones

founds at school teaching others are of the technician type.

 

A technician scientific will say he knows kundalini when he can draw the

electric voltage conduced in the nervous system. Or the

electro-physiological evidence for chakras. But he as no idea at all

what is really voltage, or a electro-physiological process, or even

fire.

 

The engineering scientific, will have only interest in how to reproduce

and control the flow of those process, so it can be of some use

according to an anthropological will. He stills has no direct link with

what is voltage or fire, etc... He does not study the limits where the

scientific ideas become non dual.

 

The idealistic one, wants to transcript all this world into a

mathematical formula. He thinks he knows what is voltage or fire.

 

What is a non dual scientific? Don't know, most probably a strange man,

sitting in front of his fire place contemplating what fire is, finding

he is fire also in such an action, but knowing it burns each times he

tries to grab it in a certain disposition of mind, working to

'phagocyte' all those dispositions of mind from is conception of

identity.

 

<< The book states, "Man now stands at the doorway of the spiritual

dimension." I am inclined to agree. It is a little-known fact that

Albert Einstein used mainly SUBJECTIVE awareness to arrive at the

formula E=MC2.

 

I have to disagree with Gene Poole that science is nothing but a cult

that perpetuates societal ills (my words, not his, but strongly implied

in his "Phagocyte" post). This may have been true 20 years ago, but the

situation is rapidly changing for the better. I'm guessing within the

next 10-30 years, science and spirituality will be reconciled at last,

after the great split that took place between "church" and scientific

thought hundreds of years ago. Finally, this rift is beginning to heal.

 

We stand at a pivotal time in history, and I believe science is going to

have no choice but to accept the fact that subjectivity has to "enter

into the equation," especially given the many recent discoveries of

quantum

physics.

 

Tim >>

[Guest guest]

Antoine wrote:

> A technician scientific will say he knows kundalini when he can draw the

> electric voltage conduced in the nervous system. Or the

> electro-physiological evidence for chakras. But he as no idea at all

> what is really voltage, or a electro-physiological process, or even

> fire.

>

> The engineering scientific, will have only interest in how to reproduce

> and control the flow of those process, so it can be of some use

> according to an anthropological will. He stills has no direct link with

> what is voltage or fire, etc... He does not study the limits where the

> scientific ideas become non dual.

>

> The idealistic one, wants to transcript all this world into a

> mathematical formula. He thinks he knows what is voltage or fire.

 

Power

 

Power rivers through every universe of time,

of mind, of us, flowing

yet elusive to the eye that looks for it.

With our own two eyes,

the shadow of power is all that we can ever see

or measure.

 

I could consult the scientist from the spectrum of fields,

the guru or saint...

 

But the pure essence of power...

this no ego can ever know.

[Guest guest]

At 12:14 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:

>They are many kinds of 'scientific', like in one hundred years there

>will probably be many kinds of nonduals

 

True... but "the scientific method" as a whole is widely accepted in all

the "sciences." It's this method that I think will be gradually changing

as the subjective is slowly accepted. Subjective meaning in the sense of

"leaps beyond rational thought" rather than "guessing" or superstition.

>A technician scientific will say he knows kundalini when he can draw the

>electric voltage conduced in the nervous system. Or the

>electro-physiological evidence for chakras. But he as no idea at all

>what is really voltage, or a electro-physiological process, or even

>fire.

 

You're right about voltage, but fire is fairly well understood to be a

visible emanating plasma caused by the heat-related breakdown of compounds

into simpler substances.

>The idealistic one, wants to transcript all this world into a

>mathematical formula. He thinks he knows what is voltage or fire.

 

I'll tell you something interesting about "practical mathematics" - certain

mathematical formulas make use of the "number" infinity. To apply these

practically, the engineer uses the formulas, but simply leaves the infinity

symbols out, drops them! How's that for denying reality?

>What is a non dual scientific? Don't know,

 

How about Albert Einstein - he arrived at "E=MC2" by *DROPPING* rational

analysis and thought, and everything sort of "fell together" and he arrived

at that formula (I believe it may have come in a dream, if I remember

right). Nondual in the sense that no rational thought was used. A

"wholistic" use of mind was made. In fact, most great scientific

discoveries (not the piddly little ones) have come as *sudden insights*

rather than arrived at through rational thought processes.

 

Tim

 

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on Spiritual Topics.

 

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

[Guest guest]

>But the pure essence of power... this no ego can ever know.

 

Beautiful, David!!

[Guest guest]

Tim Gerchmez wrote:

> >A technician scientific will say he knows kundalini when he can draw the

> >electric voltage conduced in the nervous system. Or the

> >electro-physiological evidence for chakras. But he as no idea at all

> >what is really voltage, or a electro-physiological process, or even

> >fire.

>

> You're right about voltage, but fire is fairly well understood to be a

> visible emanating plasma caused by the heat-related breakdown of compounds

> into simpler substances.

 

This definition, would make the sun something that is not fire, as all

the stars, since the visible heat generated from the sun comes from

changing less complex atoms into more complex ones. In the process

called nuclear fusion.

 

And what about the human body, that generates heat, and like bees

working to transform sun rays into solid wax, works day and night to

generate something, maybe consciousness?... Duno...

 

My point i was trying to express about the technician scientist, is that

he takes descriptions of a process for the process itself. As with

following ones breath, one may find the roots of fire into the Silent

One if we allow ourselves to become the process itself. We as a society

have given many names to fire since Rama, 6000 years ago, electricity,

energy, heat related breakdown of compounds, light, life, love, breath,

etc... To my eyes it's still the miraculous process of the 'packman'

running after its shadow, faster in some places, slower in others. The

paradox...

> How about Albert Einstein - he arrived at "E=MC2" by *DROPPING* rational

> analysis and thought, and everything sort of "fell together" and he arrived

> at that formula (I believe it may have come in a dream, if I remember

> right). Nondual in the sense that no rational thought was used. A

> "wholistic" use of mind was made. In fact, most great scientific

> discoveries (not the piddly little ones) have come as *sudden insights*

> rather than arrived at through rational thought processes.

 

It makes one think about from where those come this crazy idea of a

"rational thought processes".

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

Dharma wrote:

> >But the pure essence of power... this no ego can ever know.

>

> Beautiful, David!!

 

You too!

 

On another note, I like to share with the list that InkBlot Poetry

is one of Suite101.com's top 5 websites under the 'Metaphysical/Spiritual'

category. (a five-star site)

http://suite101.com/welcome.cfm/spirituality_metaphysical

 

Ok, I can't resist pointing out that the official websites of both Deepak Chopra

&

the author of 'The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield) both scored 4 stars. : )

http://suite101.com/links.cfm/spirituality_metaphysical

 

(yes, taken with a grain of salt but still feels good)

 

Blessings,

David

[Guest guest]

At 06:05 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:

>> You're right about voltage, but fire is fairly well understood to be a

>> visible emanating plasma caused by the heat-related breakdown of compounds

>> into simpler substances.

>

>This definition, would make the sun something that is not fire, as all

>the stars, since the visible heat generated from the sun comes from

>changing less complex atoms into more complex ones. In the process

>called nuclear fusion.

 

Correct. I would not say that the sun or the stars are "fire." I would

say that they are a kind of "chain reaction" that produces heat, fire, and

other emanations in different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Simple fire, they are not.

>And what about the human body, that generates heat,

 

There is no radiating plasma (flames) coming from the human body. There is

a kind of slow combustion going on in the cells, but that is not fire, by

the common definition. Combustion (going fast enough) can produce fire.

Going even faster, produces an explosion. But combustion itself is not fire.

>My point i was trying to express about the technician scientist, is that

>he takes descriptions of a process for the process itself. As with

>following ones breath, one may find the roots of fire into the Silent

>One if we allow ourselves to become the process itself. We as a society

>have given many names to fire since Rama, 6000 years ago, electricity,

>energy, heat related breakdown of compounds, light, life, love, breath,

>etc... To my eyes it's still the miraculous process of the 'packman'

>running after its shadow, faster in some places, slower in others. The

>paradox...

 

Yes, humans often mistake the definition for the thing.

>It makes one think about from where those come this crazy idea of a

>"rational thought processes".

 

It seems natural to most of the human species, and probably came about as a

survival mechanism. I believe there are exceptions (in the so-called

"primitive" tribes in Africa, etc). But even there, there is ritual, which

is a kind of rational process, is it not?

 

I believe "rational thought process" is no longer required as a survival

mechanism. At one time it absolutely was. Now it is no longer. It has

become a mechanism of divisiveness and destruction. And in the elimination

of it (by one means or another), something much higher and greater is to be

found. Perhaps in the loss of it, lies mankind's next evolutionary step.

 

Tim

 

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on Spiritual Topics.

 

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

[Guest guest]

At 10:44 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:

>> Correct. I would not say that the sun or the stars are "fire." I would

>> say that they are a kind of "chain reaction" that produces heat, fire, and

>> other emanations in different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

>> Simple fire, they are not.

>

>Why not?

>

>Is it the definition of fire that is to simple, or that of the star to

>complicated?

 

Neither. We're using words here, correct? And words have a definition.

So let me turn to my dictionary -

 

fire (fð„r) n., v., fired, fir•ing — n.1. the light, heat, and flame

given off by something burning. 2. a burning mass of material, as in a

furnace. 3. a destructive burning, as of a building. 4. brilliance, as of a

gem. 5. burning passion. 6. the discharge of firearms: enemy fire.

 

Woah... *SIX* different definitions. So the answer is - we define "fire"

differently. And the fact is, words and definitions are both dualistic and

divisive.

>If you stick to a definition, it's not according to it.

 

But we're using words here, how can we NOT stick to definitions? Your mind

has an idea of what "fire" is, mine has a different idea.

 

Let's dispense with definitions. Let's dispense with the word "fire," and

even the CONCEPT of "fire." Let's dispense with every rational thought,

and enjoy things as they ARE, not as how they're defined. At this place we

walk together as One!

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on Spiritual Topics.

 

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html