Creation

Enishi, Your post made me very happy. Thank you for posting that article.

As others have pointed out, the title of this post really assumes some things that might not be right, namely kudalini=upward=fire and kunlun=downward=water. There are people whose kundalini opens from the top down, or it goes up but is not experienced as fiery. And I don't see what would prevent someone from experiencing hot energy going upwards during kunlun formless practice. I think the Kunlun book mentioned this, actually. Then people start confusing these ideas with Bruce Frantzis' talk of fire and water methods. But when he talks about Taoist fire and water methods he doesn't mean that one school only utilizes one element or one direction of energetic flow. According to his books, both schools are trying to clear out the blockages and fully integrate a person on every level (in particular every element and direction). They just use different methods: Fire methods cultivate and circulate the "dan", water methods use inner dissolving.

The larger context of that quote is people on the Dzogchen path thinking they can skip right to the level of spontaneous self-liberation. It doesn't really make sense to apply that quote to paths that utilize different methods. As for siddhis and enlightenment, siddhi means accomplishment, i.e. it does not necessarily mean whatever particular super-hero ability that tends to be associated with that word. A certain degree of accomplishment is necessary to proceed on the path, would you agree?

Got a good laugh out of this.

No, I have not yet had the privilege.

Hi Blasto. I felt like I should give this thread a break so I could resume the discussion with a fresh perspective. What I really want to do now that it comes down to it is to tie off some loose ends. I see how you thought I was patronizing you. How I should have phrased that particular sentence is "I had an expectation of what you would take issue with in my post and how, and that expectation was mostly confirmed." If you still find that patronizing, sorry . It is the truth... And by satori I meant any experience where you have a major insight about yourself, particularly your thought process. I guess if you didn't know that's what I mean you might think I was patronizing you. Anyway, by "do you want to have this discussion with me" I meant "Are you getting anything out of this discussion that would motivate you to continue?" You know how it goes, people can keep arguing with each other without really getting anything out of it, they just feel some obligation to keep answering the other person. Much of this thread has that feel to it. It seems like such a waste. Now, I felt like I was getting plenty out of the dialogue, but I thought if you weren't then maybe it was time to call it quits. I took offense that you trivialized my point about being honest about my own thought process, which to me is the essence of what I think of as healthy thinking (I have decided to use this term in contradistinction to your "critical thinking"), but I have not elaborated on those ideas, so it was probably just more misunderstanding. I also took offense that you assumed I had some kind of fear of a naturalistic universe, which seemed to me to be your projection of your old self on to me. I have stood on the cusp of naturalism and contemplated the vastness of the human body and its complexity, and how maybe all my thoughts and emotions are really a dance of atoms, and been exhilarated at the prospect of figuring it all out, rather than afraid or repulsed. But even if mind and body are all reducible to chemicals interacting, don't all the worlds mystic traditions teach that there is something beyond mind and body, though they argue about what exactly it is or isn't? So I never really crossed over. But it's not like I'm refusing to believe it or anything like that, and note that I have not said anything about a supreme being. Honestly, the state of no-belief or no-preference is the place I am heading toward, but if I get there I still won't believe naturalism. I have never intended to indict your academic experience in any way. If you are referring to my criticism of the education system, I didn't mean to imply that someone can't have a wonderful, thought-refining, mind-expanding experience at a university, or indeed to imply anything about you at all. I did disapprove of what seemed to me to be an undeserved glorification of modern education, but I had misunderstood your views. Note to self: don't take the things Blasto says when he insults people to be an accurate reflection of his views. It was an honest mistake That just about covers the loose ends of the conversation from my perspective. My best to you and your family.

Very interesting about Swami Lakshman Joo. I know Kashmir Shaivism started out Tantric, but you know how it goes in India, sanyasins have a way of monopolizing things (seems like that happened with kriya yoga for example, which has only existed for ~150 years)... Thanks for confirming for me that that that is not the case with Kashmir Shaivism even if the most visible guys are Swamis.

HA! How about that. Ask and you shall receive. Hey Seth, could you give your thoughts on the spinal cord as anatomical analog of shushumna vs. vagus nerve as anatomical analog of shushumna debate? Do you experience shushumna as going up the center of the torso itself or the center of the spine? Do you experienced these two as distinct channels in the first place?

Hi Hundun. Thanks for chiming in. I started looking into this stuff because I started getting into Mark Griffin's material, and the scholar in me wanted to dig deeper. But for me the virtue of any teacher in Nityanada's lineage is not the philosophy but the LIGHT. I remember hearing Mark say something like, "In the siddha lineage nothing is explained to you but you find yourself knowing things." But if I wanted to know about the tradition of Kashmir Shaivism, I figured I would opt to learn from Swami Lakshman Joo's materials. (Hey Seth...Swami Lakshman Joo. Have you really run into high level KS teachers that learned Tantric aspects of this school in disciplic succession?) Shankaranana's teachings are something of a wildcard to me though: as far as I am concerned, Shankaranda is not in a KS lineage, but a Siddha lineage, yet he understands the philosophy on an an experiential level and is reputed to be very good at explaining it. No one's stopping me from learning from both. And I imagine I'll be making a detailed study of Buddhist philosophy as well. But that's all in the future, after I get some more personal experience under my belt. Speaking of the two disseminations of Kashmir Shaivism in the West, you don't often hear about the other Siddha lineage that made inroads into the West. Besides Nityananda's there is Swami Gangadhar Tirth's, who, like Nityananda, is a guy whose background is a mystery but who initiated a disciple who carried on his lineage. B.K. Frantzis studied in this lineage, and brought his teacher, Swami Shivom Tirth, to teach in the West. It wasn't as publicized a thing as Muktananda, but he did found and ashram in New York which publishes several of his books that look like great reads. EDIT: Apparently there are more than two Siddha lineages that have made inroads into the West: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~keutzer/kundalini/kunda-bib-web.html#contemporary-siddha

Blasto, Dialoguing with you is becoming increasingly unpleasant for me. You construe something I said very sincerely as patronizing, proceed to patronize the shit out of me in return, and manage to not really understand what I am saying and make assumptions about me that are not true. Would you please honestly answer me, do you actually want to have a discussion with me or are you just posting your reactions to what I say because it is there? If the former, I write you a reply, if the latter, I think I'll pass.

I should also add that my particular beliefs about spirit at this time are mostly irrelevant. I fully acknowledge that they are probably mostly wrong, limited, etc. But that is not the point. The point is that if you have any belief, or better, genuine realization that human beings are more than just bodies, that there is some part of a human that survives death, etc. than I would expect that you would take issue with the idea that life developed through purely physical processes. And if indeed you have genuine realization of this (many here claim to), then it most certainly is not just an emotional comfort mechanism. For me, it might be. (Probably is?) I hope to get to the point where it is not.

A very sensible post, sir! A couple of things. 1. What is indisputable from the fossil record is that there has been life on Earth has progressed over billions of years, species coming and going, and that to some extent there was a trend from simple to complex (through really, not many things around today are "more complex" than dinosaurs). I would not say the idea that the inference from this that everything, plant, animal, bacteria, etc. descends from a single common ancestor is indisputable, though it is certainly possible and I admit is a pretty neat idea. I really like to have a precise idea of what is indisputable and what is still an open question. A lot of confusion is prevented in that way. 2. You are right about the issue of the creator-creation relationship being an issue in religious people accepting evoltuiom, and ralis' article about the various emotional factors in play looks intersting as well (important work that, although I'd like to see someone study the emotional facors that cause people to freak out when I suggest that maybe some aspects of evolution are not true...) I have no problem with most of evolutionary theory myself, but I feel like there is a shackling of the mind in place that says "Thou shalt accept Neo-Darwinism", or perhaps "You will be assimilated" that really raises my ire. However, there is one aspect of Neo-Darwinism that I do have a hang-up about. In fact, what seems to be the whole point about Neo-Darwinism versus all the other evolutionary theories that exist: random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient causal mechanism for evolution. Which is to say that ultimately, the development of life on this planet was random collisions of atoms, with no need for any non-physical mechanism. I think this might come from the false dichotomy that exists in the Western mind that it is either the Judeo-Christan way the materialist/atheist way. But the consequence is that it considerations of consciousness/spirit are kicked out the door, nevermind anyone's religious beliefs about such. I cannot believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet. After all, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in bodies! This is fully compatible with evolution in general, but not with the Neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole causal agent in driving said evolution. That leaves no room for spirit, except as an emergent property of matter.

Hey Seth. I was wondering if you might be able to clarify something for me. How did Muktananda and his students come to be associated with Kashmir Shaivism, when Muktananda's guru was not, as far as I can tell, a Kashmir Shaiva (or indeed, a member of any sect)? Also, does the teacher you refer to happen to be Mahamandaleshwar Shankarananda? If so, I was curious if you had anything you would be willing to share about his Shiva Process meditation?

Hi Tao Apprentice. You may be interested to know that Jane is a member of this forum: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/user/5437-sfjane/

Hi Blasto. From age 13 through 18 my primary study was theoretical mathematics, which, you may know, places more value on rigorous logical reasoning than any other field of human endeavor, and yet at the same time is impossible to excel at without a great deal of creativity. I would say that pure math is the human activity that requires the union of creativity and rigorous argumentation more than any other. So it is a unique test case for any ideas on the matter of said union. But even though I share your appreciation of the virtues of logical thinking, I gather that I disagree with you on two points: 1. You seem to believe that part of critical thinking is complete rejection of supernatural explanations. So if someone says something about an earthquake being punishment from Gaia, you would call the person an idiot and make a remark about their education level, whereas I would prefer to say, "Maybe, but I will not take that as a working hypothesis at this point in time." 2. As my cultivation advances, I become acutely aware of how the thought process is ruled by emotional forces, inasmuch as they proived a great deal of input and filtering before a process gets to the "logic" stage. I find that emotional hang-ups play a huge role in debates, and people being unconscious about the interplay between their thought process and emotional baggage (preferring instead to try to restrict themselves to that corner of their mind that is completely logical) completely sabotages their ability to actually think critically, no matter how highly they think of critical thinking. Bad input = questionable output no matter how logical a person is. In this vein, I would counter that tweaking of writing to fit a standard of critical thinking on the purely mental level would in fact do less to ease the confusion and ill-will on the forum than people becoming more conscious of how emotional forces are shaping the input that goes into the "computer" part of the mind that critical thinking is meant to refine, as well as how it filters and shapes the form that the output (i.e. their response) takes. But I do agree with you that critical thinking (as I understand it, at least) helps a lot! For instance, did you notice that my on-topic post in the evolution thread was precisely my own way of trying to introduce more critical thinking into the discussion?

Hi Blasto. I think you are not really getting what cat was saying. Did you notice that she did not mention anything about science but only mentioned abrasiveness in the context of discussing cultivation? OK great! This merits some discussion. I personally think that your view of what the problems, causes and solutions are is limited. Here is a nice quote about education from Aristotle for you: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I sure as hell didn't learn that quote in school, nor did learn that ability in school. Actually, I saw no evidence that I was going to receive anything out of college than a education in regurgitating information and "playing the game", That was one of the reasons for my leaving (along with major depression, etc.). Even if they didn't like to admit it, almost everyone I talked to about it agreed that there wasn't a whole lot of genuine learning going on, just a bunch of hoops to be jumped through. And I went to a very prestigious research university. So every time you bring up "college" I cringe. Like college is this wonderful place you go to learn to think so well. Bullshit! In my experience, the mantra of education today is "Play the game". Was this not the case with you? "Critical thinking" is only emphasized insofar as they might try to force you into a cookie cutter mold of critical thinking, the consequences of which are students simply learn churn out assignments in a way that give an appearance of critical thinking, and worse yet, actually believe that what they are doing is critical thinking. It seems to me that your idea of "how it should be" would only result in more of this. This is on example of how I think your perspective is limited and would not necessarily solve the problem you want to solve, but perhaps even exacerbate it. OK, here is another. Much of my family are Christian fundamentalists. This is why I love that Aristotle quote: I lived it. I blend with fundamentalists and learn about them from the inside, and then went and did the same with people with other viewpoints. So as you know, there is a "Culture War" going on, and I have hung out with people from both sides, read books from both sides, etc. with a genuine interest in how both groups think. And one thing I found was that the same kinds of emotional forces were in play on both sides, though the thoughts were opposing. So you get a lot of "talking past each other". Also you get a lot of one group trying to force their views on another. (Supreme Court, anyone?) Each group will give an intellectual argument for why that is not what they are doing and that they are being eminently fair and reasonable, but on an emotional level there is the same underlying fear, bitterness and consequent will to oppress. And this always produces an averse reaction in the other party that further entrenches them in their view. The interesting thing is when you find the people who do not have this underlying emotional agenda. And they exist on both sides. But it seems that the majority do. If I may say so, it seems to me that you have this underlying emotional agenda, and that informs your views, posts, treatment of those who disagree with you. The only way that this bitter Culture War, which is a serious blight on our society, will not keep raging on and on, is to really deal with all the collective emotional baggage involved. In other words, contrary to what everyone seems to think, it is not about the intellectual issues at all! I have thought a great deal about this, and this is the conclusion I have come to. One interesting tidbit is that in India the same war is going on between Hindu fundamentalists and secularists. So this is not unique to Abrahamic traditions.

Hi guys. OK. What I wanted to say from the beginning is that you guys need to start making distinctions and being clear what you are actually talking about. This is what I understand to be the essence of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. 1. In an ecological system, natural selection occurs and this leads to speciation. 2. All life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. 2a. In particular, all life can trace it's ancestry back to single celled organisms. From single celled organisms came multicelled organism, then plants, sea animals, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc. (some steps might be missing or out of order there) 2b. In particular, men evolved from monkey-like primates. 3. The mechanism of this evolution was random mutation and natural selection. In particular, random mutation, environmental effects, natural selection, and billions of years are sufficient to account for all the diversity of life on Earth. 4. The original single celled organisms from which everything evolved developed out of non living matter. 5. This evolution of life from non life came about through purely physical processes (chemical reactions, etc.) OK. These assertions can be classified in various ways. Assertion 1 is purely a statement about what happens here and now. As such it is scientifically as sound as Newton's laws, etc. Assertions 2-5 are about things that happened a long time ago. Note that such assertions are fundamentally of a different character than statements like Newton's laws or Assertion 1. They are not repeatable and they do not make predictions that can be tested like Newton's laws do. Instead, there is a natural record of things that occurred in the past that people can try to make sense of. But this is of a fundamentally different character than studying things that are here and now. Sciences like paleontology and cosmology are of this nature, and this must be acknowledged. Disagreeing with statements 2-5 is not intellectually on the same level as disagreeing with Newton's laws, and moreover someone can agree with statement 1 and completely disagree with statements 2-5. To make a further distinction (which Jetsun already addressed), statements 2 and 4 are about what happened, and statements 3 and 5 are about how it happened. Once again, I must stress the fundamentally different character of these types of assertions. One can look for evidence of 2 and 4 in the natural record, but even if 2 and 4 are found to be true, 3 and 5 do not necessarily follow! They are ultimately, in my opinion, not scientifically provable statements. Really think about how you would prove 3 or 5 scientifically. Strictly speaking, you can't. What you can do is try to establish plausibility. E.g. the question is does natural selection etc. provide a sufficient causal explanation of the mechanism of evolution. That is the big question by which the whole Neo-Darwinian theory stands or falls. BUT even if 3 and 5 (the core of the Neo-Darwinian theory) are false, 2 and 4 might still be true, but the causal explanation is missing. (If you want my candid observation here, a lot of scientists know this but won't admit it publicly because they are afraid that it will give Creationists a foothold in the political arena, a sad case of politics interfering in free scientific discourse). And even if you can establish plausibility of 3 and 5, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it actually happened that way, do you see? So there are a great many levels of potential meaning and potential for truth and falsehood in the whole debate about evolution. I think it is unfortunate that this is not acknowledged. People have this impression that either you believe that evolution (as a single monolithic thing) is a scientific fact (not acknowledging that there are different kinds of sciences with different methodologies for proof), or you are a Bible thumping Neanderthal. To summarize the various possibilities inherent in the truth or falsehood of "evolution": -1 is true, no question. -2 could be true or false. This cannot be proven scientifically in the same was as 1. But it can be shown to be consistent or inconsistent with and then suggested or not suggested by the natural history. But even if the natural history suggests 2 is true (the consensus being that it does) I must add the caveat that just as with any science, as our ability to look deeper into the natural history increases, we must not take 2 for granted, but be willing to revise our views. Now, also notice that 2 can be partially true and partially false. E.g. people could have evolved from monkeys without birds evolving from dinosaurs, or dinosaurs descending from single cells in a primordial goo. So the various proposed evolutionary chains should be evaluated separately. I think scientists themselves understand this, but this point can be glossed over in debates, instead taking evolution as one big monolithic thing, once again becasue of the fear of giving Creationists a foothold. -4 could be true or false, but I can't imagine delving deeply enough into the natural history to ever be able conclusively make any kind of conclusion. -3 (respectively 5) is relevant insofar as 2 (respectively 4) is true. It cannot be proven, the best you can hope for is to give an argument for plausibility. But even if it is agreed to be plausible (the consensus among biologist is that it is, the textbooks tell me), it could still be false. So Marblehead, Blasto, ralis, Ken, everyone defending Evolution please be clear about just what aspects you are defending. Apparently Marblehead is only defending a small part of what the actual Neo-Darwinian theory encompasses. If he could make clear precisely which part I think that would be helpful. And I want to point again to an underlying force in such discussions this that makes otherwise rational people like scientists bulldoze over these subtleties: There is an underlying fear of being completely honest about the situation because of the politics of it. OK, so now Blasto can tell me if indeed by his standards of discourse this 21 year old college dropout should have abstained from posting.

Thanks for the encouragement. I had one year of college too, well, more like part of a year before personal issues were interfering too much with school work. But the point was pointing out to Blasto how he was creating an abrasive atmosphere and cutting off potential dialogue, for whatever that's worth, seeing as I like him. Of course, it's not just Blasto. I think this thread has degenerated into too much of a joke for me to spend my energy trying to post something serious here. I wonder about this place...

You presence gives some warmth to this ice-cold thread. Actually, people who are abrasive bear the the burden for an abrasive atmosphere. FYI, I was considering posting on topic, but apparently my opinion is irrelevant because I didn't make it past high school, not to mention being well under 40 and having access to the internet since I was 13, and that I am a Neanderthal (or was it Stone-Ager?) for questioning the scientific establishment. Have a nice day.

WOW! Most inspiring post on here for me in a while. Loved the pottery analogy and the bit about listening.

I have long considered cosmology to not be on the same level of scientific validity as the rest of physics. Too much guesswork, too many hidden assumptions that are as or more likely to turn out to be wrong as right.

Hey MPG. From what you have said you fit the description of a person on the pratyekabuddha path to a T. As for Buddhists claiming to have freed themselves from rebirth, well if someone claims to be a Arhat (aka Arahant), part of that is being free from ever having to be reborn again, at least not in the desire realm (not sure about the technical details). Daniel Ingram is an example of a Buddhist teacher who claims to be a Arhat. There are many forms of "immortality" that people talk about. The Mo Pai idea of being able to retain your Yang qi after death does not sound like freedom from rebirth for all time because it did not cut the root of unconscious rebirth. More like you would get to be in spirit form, who knows for how long, but eventually you would be reborn. Don't know if that is acceptable to you.

Hi Jess. Just wanted to stop in and let you know I'm enjoying you posts here. Thanks.

rain, What an astonishing feat of necromancy you have performed! 4 and a half years ago... Perhaps these links will be of use to you: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13156-sifu-jenny-lambs-upcoming-yi-gong-seminars/page__st__32__p__241204entry241204 http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/17830-a-message-from-sifu-jenny-lamb/