Leaderboard

I don't know why exactly but this is not just my view. When in my late teens I pretended that I was a physicist (because I came second regularly in the school exams behind Mr. Perfect who always got 90+% in every exam while I got 89%) I liked it because to me physics was the science which tackled the big questions about the nature of reality/astrophysics/relativity/quantum doodahs etc. Fortunately for me and the world of science I read the Tao Te Ching when I was 18 and that finished things. I became a mystic and just played at physics from then on. But still I held in it in some respect for the scope of its subject and so on. This would be in the 1970s by the way when the beast was still alive and kicking. One trick I discovered was that in any branch of physics there are one or two (max three) basic equations which if you master them all other equations are derived from. So you can 'know' (or in my case blag) a subject by just working out which equations these are. Which leads on to another point about physics - which is that most physics is the application of a form of mathematics to the physical world. In the 1670s or thereabouts both Newton and Leibniz invented calculus. Although Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism this was not so. In fact Leibniz's notation and formulation were better, he was the better mathematician but Newton's application (to mechanics) was better. We use Leibniz's notation today but we have Newtonian mechanics. The history of science is littered with examples where two or more independently discover the same thing, at more or less the same time. I see this as there being times when key ideas enter the human consciousness. Of course the ideas used have always been there, the Greeks, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Chinese ... which is why Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. But despite this there are times when these ideas/insights come into the human domain in a new way and with new applications. There are other times of course when ideas are not so forthcoming. The 'truth' becomes elusive. One thing that I suspect may happen is that there is a conceptual block because of the mathematics used. For instance in quantum mechanics there is 'uncertainty' and this means it is difficult to express mathematically the qualities of sub atomic particles, their position and energy for instance. But if you apply probability statistics to them you can make predictions about their behaviour which are accurate and allow you to do things like make semi-conductors which work in circuits. So you know that your approach works because the diodes and transistors work (and thus your television or computer works). Hey presto. But then you may fall into a conceptual trap because you might think that because probability maths works for you, then particles are probability wave functions. Not that they can be described in this way but actually this is their nature. It's a kind of conceptual capture which leads to a ton of woo woo. This means many physicists will say don't worry about what it means just do the numbers (cos they work). I think this may have happened across a number of fields of physics. Which has lead people to play with the maths too much and generate a host of hypothetical theories which are just kind of mathematical expansions which have no relation to reality. This is not progress but just a testament to the imaginative skill of humans. Just my thoughts.

Thanks. Of these I'm only familiar with David Bohm's work. While we're mentioning books that approach physics from some underexplored but potentially fruitful perspective, here's an interesting one I read a bunch of years ago and will probably return to, to see how I see it now: I am fascinated by everything Time and its phenomena (in the "physics" sense -- as are taoist sciences, for which it was the main area of study since time immemorial -- unlike in ours overwhelmingly more focused on the antics of Space phenomena). One quote from Barbour's book that stayed with me as a kind of mental meme, a reminder of sorts of "the way things really are": "The cat that jumped off the couch and the cat that landed on the floor are not the same cat."

There actually are people working in exactly this dimension and wrestling with foundational questions, particularly in relational quantum theory. Carlo Rovelli has written some interesting stuff in this regard. David Bohm as well. Huw Price is another interesting figure who writes on the philosophy of science, particularly regarding time. The entirety of string theory seems rooted in looking for a deeper understanding of what is a particle. I think that it is so useful and effective to work with the assumption of objective reality that it is difficult to give up. It’s that way with any foundational axioms but theoretical progress requires freedom and creativity, both of which tend to be suppressed by financial and political influences. Your earlier comment is spot on - we need to take care not to mistake the theory and models for the reality they attempt to represent and explain.

""Om Tat Sat" is a Sanskrit mantra from the Bhagavad Gita that signifies the supreme reality, absolute truth, or "all that is". It is a combination of three sacred sounds: "Om" represents the primordial sound of creation and Brahman; "Tat" means "that"; and "Sat" represents eternal existence or truth. Chanting the mantra is believed to awaken higher consciousness and connect the practitioner to the true self by affirming ultimate reality and unity in existence."

I absolutely love this topic! It comes up all the time in our classes. I think there are as many approaches to meditation as there are humans on this Earth. And what's happened is a few charismatic or powerful or popular teachers have said this was said or that was said and so therefore it must be true. A really long time ago minds were different, Society was different, culture was different everything was different. And meditation techniques adapt to the times. If you sat on a cushion long enough I think you'd find the meditation technique that's perfect for you. And likely there would be lots and lots and lots of thoughts along the way. Sending you all blessings on your chosen path, Christopher

The Ancient Egyptians saw everything I terms of time and didn’t even have a word for space as such.

Thanks @steve that was interesting. Just goes to show that the questions that physics has 'stumbled upon' are very ancient. For instance as in the idea that the wave function of the experimenter interacts with the experiment to give the outcome. The Samkhyas asked a similar question - what is the observer and what is the observed ... and came up with Purusha and Prakriti as the answer. I guess Buddhists would say various things depending on the schools, it's dharmas, its 'mind' = citta or even Madhyamaka - there is no observer or an observed. So I think physics is asking important questions and more importantly showing that it's not just theory it's real. But they are still stuck in the paradigm of 'the external objective physical world is fundamentally real' ... while I would say that unless they break this assumption their theories will not develop. For instance they talk about the qualities of particles without ever asking what exactly is a particle (if indeed such a thing exists in the first place). I don't think fundamentally that reality can be broken down into bits. Or at least if you do ... then each 'bit' somehow contains the whole. As in each instance of consciousness (dharma) includes all consciousness (like a hologram). But to think like this would fundamentally tear up the very idea of an objective world as a real thing. We have tried, in a bid to be truly objective, to exclude ourselves from the equation, only to fail. But the successes we have had in manipulating 'matter' and so on keep us locked in this view.

Also the microwave oven! Wikipedia: In 1945, the heating effect of a high-power microwave beam was independently and accidentally discovered by Percy Spencer, an American self-taught engineer from Howland, Maine. While employed at Raytheon, he noticed that microwaves from an active radar set he was working on started to melt a candy bar he had in his pocket. The first food deliberately cooked by Spencer was popcorn, and the second was an egg, which exploded in the face of one of the experimenters. Apparently there is still an ongoing controversy about what kind of chocolate bar invented the microwave.

I’m also a beginner in cultivation. My master told me to gather my scattered thoughts, circulate qi, keep early hours (go to bed early and get up early), and build a solid foundation by nurturing my health first. Currently, I can calm my mind and focus my spirit within 20 seconds, but my body suffered great depletion from childbirth. I need to nourish my health over the long term before I can lay the cultivation foundation. Well, our situations might be different—do you have any specific cultivation questions? I can ask my master for you, or consult a Taoist medicine Taoist priest. I’ve recently been learning health-nurturing methods from a Taoist medicine Taoist priest.

Shi-Jing-Dao (Master（师）, Scripture（经）, and the Dao（道）) — representing the three pillars of Daoist cultivation: transmission from the master, study of the classics, and realization of the Dao. "Body, Mind, and Intent" are the core content explained in the first chapter of the Taoist text Dragon Gate Heart Method, and they run through the entire book. From the perspective of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory, the mind and intent also have distinctions—this is also recorded in Huangdi Neijing (Yellow Emperor's Internal Classic). As for the specific interpretation, please wait; I need to consult someone and then study it further. After all, I have only been practicing for eight months. I just want to find fellow practitioners.Cultivating inner elixir and Taoist techniques requires the support of mental methods. My understanding of this is still quite limited, so let’s continue our discussion after I do more learning

I think science is just fine, as a method of inquiry, when applied rigorously and honestly. The problem is the people and the institutions that grow out of them. I enjoyed this brief discussion which tries to make sense of the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics.

If you are stuck in traffic, make the Kali Mudra, point it at the cars in front of you and proclaim, solemnly, Om Tat Sat! In 9 cases out of 10, the traffic will start dispersing.

I would like to add that there are more literal definitions of those words that express a more literal understanding: Om = is also "AUM" which is a Hebrew formula that means the same thing. It is essentially the uncreated. The vibration of immortal frequency. Tat = this or that, it is a word to describe an idea, object. Sat = Being. not intellectual truth. I really enjoy hinduism and have been studying it immensely for the last few years. I like to read books by Swami Vivekananda.

Volition in the activity of speech, body and mind completely ceases, in successive states of concentration: …I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling. (SN 36.11, tr. Pali Text Society vol IV p 146) What ceases is not speech itself, but intention or choice in speech, and similarly for deeds (choice in action of the body, affecting inbreathing and outbreathing), and for mind (choice in perception and feeling). It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind. (AN 6.63, tr. Sujato Bhikkyu) Maybe a better translation, speaking of "action" instead of "deeds" in the first sentence (but "intention" and "choice" are clearer translations than "determinate thought" and "determines") : …I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought. (AN 6.63, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 294) Gautama directed his mind in the fourth concentration to various psychic phenomena, that was the basis of his enlightenment: The Fourth Jhāna ... with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and grief, the bhikkhu enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna, which is neither pleasant nor painful and contains mindfulness fully purified by equanimity. He sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright mind. “Great king, suppose a man were to be sitting covered from the head down by a white cloth, so that there would be no part of his entire body not suffused by the white cloth. In the same way, great king, the bhikkhu sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright mind. Insight Knowledge “When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’... The Knowledge of the Mind-made Body When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties.... The Knowledge of the Modes of Supernormal Power When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supernormal power. He exercises the various modes of supernormal power: having been one, he becomes many and having been many, he becomes one; he appears and vanishes; he goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space; he dives in and out of the earth as if it were water; he walks on water without sinking as if it were earth; sitting cross-legged he travels through space like a winged bird; with his hand he touches and strokes the sun and the moon, so mighty and powerful; he exercises mastery over the body as far as the Brahma-world.... You get the idea. This goes on, through "Knowledge of the Divine Ear", "Knowledge Encompassing the Minds of Others", "Knowledge of Recollecting Past Lives", "Knowledge of the Divine Eye", and finally concludes with "Knowledge of the Destruction of the Cankers", the cankers being three cravings: “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; PTS vol. ii p 340). When the cankers are “destroyed”, the roots of the craving for sense-pleasures, the roots of the craving “to continue, to survive, to be” (tr. “bhava”, Bhikkyu Sujato), and the roots of the craving not “to be” (the craving for the ignorance of being) are destroyed. With the destruction of the cankers, Gautama considered himself enlightened, "having done what was to be done", nothing further "to be done through diligence" (MN 70). I imagine that's basically the same goal in Hinduism.

I believe it is the cultivation of 調身(body)、調心(mind)、調息(breathing). "Intent" is in the mind already. It was just double talk.

Substance literally means what stands under ... so for instance the substance of a table might be wood. So the wood is more 'basic' or underlying in the sense that if there were no wood there would be no table (provided it is a wooden one). In the case of internal alchemy the substance(s) are what lies behind appearance. The deeper you go the more 'real' you get ... in the sense of being without dependence on anything beneath. I think the question 'is the MCO real' is the wrong one. It would be better to ask 'does it work?' or 'what does it do?' or perhaps 'how do you make it work' but this question gives rise to the general question 'can you make it work or does it just happen'. Most if not all energy exercises/techniques or practices simply replicate intentionally things that happen naturally. So a certain breathing practice if done with conscious will simply replicates something that would arise naturally if the circumstances arise. For instance vase breathing, abdominal breathing, embryonic breathing and so on are all like this (in my experience). I would put the MCO in the same category. The danger in practicing without first achieving deep meditational states is that you replace the genuine cycling of energy with an imagined substitute which does not and cannot hit the spot so to speak. But equally you have to gain some familiarity with the subtle body and its workings in order to progress and so as you absorb intellectually the principles of the working of the subtle body this in itself stimulates it into action.