tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post115151804664808838..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: The Acausal Universe; Wilber, Da, Evolution, Astrology, and the Pattern of SynchronicityBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-7521198059330850212009-10-16T14:12:54.619-07:002009-10-16T14:12:54.619-07:00Hello! I found you're blog.
I think the blog ...Hello! I found you're blog.<br /><br />I think the blog post in the page <br />bloganders.blogspot.com (in the left menu), which proves the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind, will be of interest to you.<br /><br />Anders BranderudAnders Branderudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15696376904417632753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1151601772585304842006-06-29T10:22:00.000-07:002006-06-29T10:22:00.000-07:00I’m not certain I understand your argument and how...I’m not certain I understand your argument and how it fits with the nondual approach (emptiness is form, form emptiness.) I’m wondering if you think this acausal relationship between spirit and matter works the other way--that matter cannot influence changes in one’s realization of spirit, or have a psychic influence in any way?<BR/><BR/>Doesn’t this defy the yogic understanding that physical postures and breathing and meditation can prepare a person for enlightenment? <BR/><BR/>The other question I have is this: let’s say an astrologer looks at my natal chart and due to the planets being aligned a certain way the moment I was born, this corresponds to the patterning of how I relate to the world. But you’re saying there’s no cause and effect going on, right? That it’s synchronous correspondence... I’m struggling to understand!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1151601362870419462006-06-29T10:16:00.000-07:002006-06-29T10:16:00.000-07:00Hi again,I think you feel my complaints come from ...Hi again,<BR/>I think you feel my complaints come from not understanding what you are saying, and maybe I don't, though I think I do. Let me give this one more shot and then I'll shut up. What you have just said does make things more clear but it doesn't lessen my complaint. <BR/><BR/>I think you are saying essentially that there are various levels of reality which are not related causally but which are patterns that exist only in a synchronous relationship and that we shouldn't mix these categfories, especially in any ideas of causal relationship. <BR/><BR/>My complaint right off the bat has to do with your strict categorical separation of reality into various levels. When one talks about synchronicity, one is necessarily talking about a relationship between domains which are actually separate. This is what I am disagreeing with. As far as I am concerned it is all a single event. <BR/><BR/>Then you focus on and separate out the physical level and sum it up as, or reduce it to a mechanistic automaticity which suggests the old existential meaningless inevitability which I and many struggled with back in college days. It all feels to me like your old atheistic bias, which you have spoken about before, leaking back in. Not surprisingly, considering that bias, you seem attracted to Da's theory of the mechanistic patterning of existence as a whole at all levels. So it seems to me that mechanistic physicality tends to colour all of reality in your view. <BR/><BR/>What I am saying, and I think Ken is implying essentially, is that there is no such thing as a separate physical reality, not even with regard to attention. All these levels and categories are actually false, or simply analytical distinctions. They don't really exist. There need be no synchronicity at all because reality is all one single movement, fully present here and now. <BR/><BR/>You say that attention functions simply as the witness, that God is acausal and that basically nothing is operating in any causal way. The pattern is merely witnessed. But this division creates a categorical separation between the observer and the observed and renounces subjective responsibility in the functioning of the objective aspect of reality, as if the witness is somehow inevitably victim to what is witnessed, a meaningless mechanistic movie played over and over again. <BR/><BR/>I imagine it is presumed that, seeing things in this way, one would lose interest in the movie, release attention from it and in this way gain liberation. Be liberated from life by indifference and disinterest in a meaningless endlessly repeating mechanistic event. <BR/><BR/>If so, then what is so different in that view from saying inversely that this single event is not merely witnessed but, at the most fundamental level, actually brought into being and enlivened by the subjective factor of interest, desire or eros? The entire single event of manifest existence, including the physical mechanism of consciousness, materiality, is present to attention due to the rebirth of interest in the whole event, in itself. Isn't it the same thing? Interest, attraction and love is the subjective cause of the pattern. <BR/><BR/>Now you may say that this is not good if you want liberation but it still does not deny that there is a subjective cause behind or within manifest reality, including the physical level. And is that so far from what Ken is essentially implying? That's the level I'm trying to get at here, the overall driving force behind all these mutations etc., not necessarily the details. What is the drive to succed and survive and reproduce all about? The mechanism is secondary to the aim. It's all a single movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com