tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post7451833083385589801..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Putting All Tools AsideBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-45207707945990294962009-10-27T14:06:16.194-07:002009-10-27T14:06:16.194-07:00I did the same thing on richarddawkins.net. They s...I did the same thing on richarddawkins.net. They said that I was a troll.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-50139847418556041902009-06-10T16:47:32.982-07:002009-06-10T16:47:32.982-07:00Conrad - hoping you will return to share your thou...Conrad - hoping you will return to share your thoughts. The URL for my maya-gaia Nirvikalpa Samadhi chronicles has changed after June, 2009 to http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/mysticalexp.html<br /><br />Your blog still is highly ranked in Google searches for esoteric terms.maya-gaiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635338282525024784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-54354461055133139772009-01-26T09:52:00.000-08:002009-01-26T09:52:00.000-08:00Hey Busted Yogurt,Come on over to Heartmind.us and...Hey Busted Yogurt,<BR/><BR/>Come on over to Heartmind.us and help polish up some threads with us. Love your insight. Best wishes, <BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-47691151807058156842009-01-05T14:59:00.000-08:002009-01-05T14:59:00.000-08:00Scott Fraundorf:To dawkins (I'm not sure if this c...Scott Fraundorf:<BR/><BR/>To dawkins (I'm not sure if this contact would actually reach him), I thought you might be interested. my e-mail is hiroshima11@graffiti.net <BR/><BR/>I somehow doubt it, but I was wondering, is there a way to contact Dawkins to bring up interesting arguments....<BR/>If so...I'm going to take a gander at it.<BR/>I'm a molecular biology major at Portland State University. My understanding of Religion, and spirituality differs greatly from the Spirituality, or Religiousness, Dawkins is critical of. The kind of beliefs that entail belief in something imagined, something memetic, something ideological. A great God in the sky with a white flowing beard, who metes out justice and punishment. In my own life, religiousness, entails the surrender of the ego, the surrender of subject and object, of I and mine. It can be to an imagined god, if that helps. It doesn't require it. The sense of being an individual, the ego, the self-concept is an obstruction to really living in my own experience. So religiousness to me entails investigating where that sense of an individual seperate from the rest of the universe comes into being. God, as I experience it, is the blissful existence consciousness that is left over, when the sense of being an individual goes away, merges. I've also noticed that the foundation of most religions whether Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Rumi, and others, often seems to be this same subjectless, objectless Existence, God. Then the less mature followers interpret the statements of these "founders" of religions in far fetched ways. This kind of religion, I've been diving into, experiencing more and more doesn't seem to be in conflict with scientific investigation, infact it is scientific investigation, because it doesn't require anything imaginary to be believed. But it's also not strictly science, because it doesn't involve physical phenomenon in a physical world. I thought this, is something that seems to escape Dawkins notice. Many saints, "Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist", and others, didn't believe in an imaginary God, but had direct experience of this blissful nondual awareness of what they called "God". Catherine of Sienna, and St. Francis of Assissi come to mind, in the Hindu tradition the modern sage Ramana Maharshi, and the 8th century sage Adi Shankara. I was an atheist for many years, because I believed in the supremacy of the intellect, now I find that the intellect is complemented, not injured by other important aspects of knowing, such as intuition and emotion. It's an interesting worldview flip similar to Selfish Gene, but it's the Selfish Gene, the religion version, paradigm shift. Instead of relying on fantasy, imagination, instead the Big Questions, Who Am I? Where did reality come from? the religious question of where is happiness? It's interesting in the Dawkins debates, that the Soviet Union was considered atheist, and Nazi Germany Catholic. But are these people that oppress others, truly reverent to life, to existence. Many atheists such as Dawkins are far more reverent to the Universe then many loud mouthed religious preachers. Who then is more religious, Dawkins or who he is critical of? What does Religion mean, does it mean faith in fantasy and imagination, statues, and imagining that when I'm praying I'm talking to someone? Or is religion, as I believe it to be the search for happiness, love and wisdom. Is the search for happiness, wisdom, and love, internally, are these unempirical, unscientific? Or is Science, the investigation of the Universe born of happiness, wisdom and love?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-31508350184152927562008-10-28T07:52:00.000-07:002008-10-28T07:52:00.000-07:00"I 'saw' God".Here is an excerpt..."I 'saw' God".<BR/><BR/>Here is an excerpt from a site I created (just launched Oct 25th) to communicate my experience (squishyrocks.com):<BR/><BR/>"She told me the shape [I "saw"] is universal microcosm or some such.... and it is when I googled this information from the Reiki Practitioner that I came across the Souls of Distortion site. More specifically it was this chapter http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter6.html that explained how the vortex that I "saw" is the internal structure of energy that scientists could not see until recently, but two "clairvoyants " saw correctly in 1895. I did not take notes at the time I saw the vortex and cannot claim to remember the minute details of the vision. So, needless to say, my paintings are not scientific. However, the eternal spin of the aether vortex that I "saw" is propelled by Gforce, or "GodForce". AetherDynamics defines it as an enormous force with no known cause. So I "saw" God."<BR/><BR/>I am a skeptic of anything religious or spiritual... or at least I was up until July 21st 2008.<BR/>What happened that day TRULY changed my life (at age 31). I then went on a journey to figure out what my experience meant and if I could repeat it.<BR/>This NEED to understand what happened to me inspired me to communciate it to as many people as possible. I am an artist & graphic designer (coincidentally, this is my livelihood). I painted and journaled my experiences since July 21st. I created a website to communicate my esperiences:<BR/>http://www.squishyrocks.com/story.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-33102685893792920202008-10-04T12:54:00.000-07:002008-10-04T12:54:00.000-07:00scott Fraundorf:Hi Broken Yogi, i'm familiar with ...scott Fraundorf:<BR/><BR/>Hi Broken Yogi, i'm familiar with your comments from david Godman's blogspot page.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to say that alot of what you said fit with my own views of God, and Science.<BR/><BR/>i actually am a Molecular Biology Major, science fiend. But a fiend, in the same way that I like to look at pretty things, I like math, I like molecule tinker toys, and at the same time I'm an attempter of Inquiry, Maharshi-style.<BR/><BR/>I even wrote a fake encounter between Maharshi, and richard Dawkins, I don't know how good it is, but I was trying to deal with how would that go over.<BR/><BR/>It is funny because of the allergic reaction to 1) the idea of God, 2) the idea that plants might be conscious in some in the "scientific community"<BR/><BR/>Not necessarily true, for all scientists. My dad, a theoretical physisist genius, isn't really that shallow about things, and enjoys me reading dialogues with Maharshi on the phone to him.<BR/><BR/>There is science the ideology, and there are those who enjoy tinkering, and playing with concepts. Einstein pretending to ride a light wave, stuff, that I think can be really fun. Also I don't think science and spirituality are in conflict at all, only by the ideologists who want to draw clear divisions in the sand. Just something to be right about.<BR/><BR/>But just like I'm obsessed with maharshi, I'm obsessed with protein molecule machines, and what they do to make the theatrical concept of life go. But I also unlike some of my scientific brethren, recognize the limits of this, and that these are just concepts, however fun they may be, concepts can never be the truth. Some thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-8791902444659618882008-09-21T07:42:00.000-07:002008-09-21T07:42:00.000-07:00Desika,Your honest opinion is over-valued at 2 cen...Desika,<BR/><BR/>Your honest opinion is over-valued at 2 cents.Yogi Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18397416365981349393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-297321767646823942008-08-14T17:57:00.000-07:002008-08-14T17:57:00.000-07:00An atheist and a theist are no different from each...An atheist and a theist are no different from each other, both are constantly thinking of God. An atheist says, "I don't believe in God," and a theist says, "I believe in God." There is more in common to them than differences as you can see. In Hinduism, there is a concept of "Vaira Bhakti" (Devotion through enmity). Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata are replete with the stories. In Ramayana, the demon king Ravana constantly thought of Rama in anger, more so than any devotee of Rama. Same thing in Mahabharata with Sisupala constantly thinking and ridiculing Krishna, only to be finally slain and liberated by Krishna. In Prahlada Charitra (Story of Prahlada), Prahlada's father, HiranyakaSipa was the demon king wanting to kill Vishnu. It so happens that Prahlada was a great devotee of Vishnu. When HiranyakaSipa asks Prahlada to show Him where Vishnu is, he tells HiranyakaSipa that Vishnu is constantly dwelling in the heart and mind of HiranyakaSipa, since he has been constantly thinking of him, though in anger and enmity. Lord Krishna said that whoever thought of him, in any manner, was dear to Him.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, atheism cannot stand on its own. An atheist is against a particular concept and definition of god. If there is no theism, then there is no atheism. Also, without atheism, theism cannot survive. Why at one point or another all of us questioned the existence of a higher power only to be propelled on our individual quests. Both are two sides of the same coin, IMHO.<BR/><BR/>My 2 cents.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>DesikaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-14801488995050719392008-08-02T20:06:00.000-07:002008-08-02T20:06:00.000-07:00I was struck by the term "hardcore athiests" Athie...I was struck by the term "hardcore athiests" Athiests, like everyone else, are hooked on a subjective set of assumptions about the unknown. Yet they labour under the dangerous delusion that they are worlds above the foolish dupes of conventional religion that have bought into some hocus-pocus dogma. And yet, this is exactly the attitude that is the most obnoxious aspect of most conventional religions. The Unitarians being a notable exception but they are the exceotion that proves the point since they are roundly attacked and derided for their unique effort. <BR/><BR/>People tend to forget that whenever you reject anything, you are at the same time embracing something else. In this case, by rejecting conventional religion, the athiests are embracing a zealous devotion to rationality. There are worse gods to worship, to be sure. But, as I see it, the athiests are turning into an exact replica of their sworn enemies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-60571058439595001932008-07-31T12:14:00.000-07:002008-07-31T12:14:00.000-07:00Very good post, i presume you're referring to rama...Very good post, i presume you're referring to ramakrishna paramahamsa by saying ramakrishna.<BR/>I wish you'd call him paramahamsa or ramakrishna paramahamsa in your future posts.maha mantra bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876621668967070291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-67735810271428136382008-07-23T12:08:00.000-07:002008-07-23T12:08:00.000-07:00The first two links you have under"pyschisms and m...The first two links you have under<BR/>"pyschisms and metaphysics" present a curious, puzzling picture. Have you expanded on that here? (I have read some of your visionary reports here, I believe one related to your father and another where you assume the perspective of the reincarnating higher personality, to use the vocabulary of Adi Da...guess I'll go through old posts here to see what I missed and find clues to what caused you to have an interest in the writings and perspectives introduced in those first two links).<BR/><BR/>Appreciate and enjoy your articles here!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15259151459827690096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-53727053552319879812008-07-20T17:01:00.000-07:002008-07-20T17:01:00.000-07:00I mean, I'm used to being called a fool once in a ...<I>I mean, I'm used to being called a fool once in a while, but this was an unrelenting onslaught that turned into a total rejection not just of my ideas, but of me personally. That was quite refreshing in its own way, and I highly recommend the experience. There's nothing quite like being told you are a complete idiot to take away any veneer of pride you once might have had in yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>I enjoyed your reflections on your experiences at the science discussion groups, but I'm confused by your statement quoted above. Why does being told you are a "complete idiot" take away your "veneer of pride?" It would only do this if you were convinced that the points of view that you were arguing were indeed wrong, and that the views of those you had opposed turned out to be right. In other words that you recognized that in fact you were wrong and they were right. Thus their characterization of you as a "complete idiot," while certainly an overstatement, would have at least had a kernel of truth that you had to accept, and thus putting at least a nick in your "veneer of pride".<BR/><BR/>If, on the other hand, you continue to hold the view that those who called you an idiot are incorrect in their views (about what is god, or what is the capacity of science to reveal "truth", or whatever, etc.), then there is no damage to your veneer by their name calling. Instead your ego is reinforced by feeling that you are right and your accusers are wrong. Then such accusations as being called a "complete idiot" actually serve to reinforce your egoic sense of self. The ego loves nothing more than to be right, and to see others as wrong. No matter whether or not they call you names, you come away from such an exchange with your ego inflated by the sense of being right, even if they can't see it. That they are so "cultic" and can't see how right you are, and even see you as an idiot, is big-time food for your ego. You come away with the ego more bloated than ever.<BR/><BR/>However, this would not be the case if you were convinced that they were actually right in their views, and that you are wrong. Then their attack on your intelligence might "bite". So please, tell us, specifically, which arguments you presented that turned out to be wrong in your view now, and which arguments they presented that you opposed but now see to be correct?<BR/><BR/>Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-33927705026207674492008-07-18T07:18:00.000-07:002008-07-18T07:18:00.000-07:00Conrad...Good to see you up and articulating again...Conrad...<BR/>Good to see you up and articulating again. Scientism posits that the total lack of empirical evidence is their cause to deny God, yet with no more <BR/>evidence, they acknowledge consciousness without question. Suggests that it is atheistic ideological revulsion to the God tradition that raises the defensive bias in the science community forums. I went through a similar session of discoursing in forums like badastronomy, sciforum and physorg starting threads on <BR/>'panpsychism' and 'conscious electromagnetic matrix' but got pretty well hammered down by the uber-atheists who regularly ridicule ideas like The Tao of <BR/>Physics, Implicate Order and Privileged Planet as 'junk science'. Must admit compared to your flowing style I write with stilted effort but couple of years <BR/>ago managed to compose a webpage that overviews the challenge of 'new science' to overcome 'physicalism' and move towards synthesis with broad metaphysical truths. It's entitled "Cosmic Consciousness: is Science Closing In?" at http://beyondmaya.awardspace.com. Liked your thoughts on mind tools and love and feel that the love we project on objects is our expression in duality of the palpable essence of God 'experienced' in nonduality at the source- the primordial bliss <BR/>and light of nirvikalpa samadhi that Rumi celebrates, saying: 'there is no better love than love without object'.<BR/>maya-gaiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com