Message info
 
To:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From:turquoiseb Subject:[FairfieldLife] Turiya-tit-for-tat-iya (was Re: Astral Residence Courses) Date:Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:18:36 -0000
 

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
>
> I see.

I doubt it. :-) As I see it, the whole idea of "proving
enlightenment" is remarkably like the idea of "proving
the existence of God." It's a faith-driven initiative,
of interest only to the faithful.

The only people who would be overjoyed by some "scientific
proof" of enlightenment are people who *already* believe
it exists. For the many billions on this planet who do not,
such a "discovery" would not even cause a blip on their
radar.

Who, after all, who has not already been convinced as a
result of either upbringing in an "enlightenment exists"
culture or as the result of decades of dogma ingestion,
is going to even CARE if science can prove that such a
state exists?

IF it could be proved to exist, does that make it desirable?
Can enlightened people be sad? History, and the testimony
of the Supposedly Enlightened, says Yes. So where's the
big advantage in being enlightened? Can an enlightened
person be crazy? Again, history says Yes.

So no, I don't think that science will ever pinpoint the
exact physiological coorelates of enlightenment. More
important, however, unlike the True Believers who think
it would be a Big Deal if they did, I think it would
make barely a ripple in human history. No one who hadn't
already bought into the idea would even care.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > How would you go about trying to prove enlightenment?
> >
> > I wouldn't.
> >
> > > Or do you just discount this notion altogether?
> >
> > Yes. Fool's errand.
> >
> > Subjective it is, and subjective it will always remain.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > Even if you found 50 people who could produce the same
> > > > types of brainwaves, what would you have established?
> > > > IMO, only that at least 50 people have learned to con-
> > > > trol their thinking in such a fashion that they can
> > > > create similar results during crude physiological tests.
> > > > Again, no connection with either enlightenment or the
> > > > lack thereof has been established.
> > >
> > >
> > > How is this different from someone who engages in a program of
> physical
> > > conditioning and then undergoes testing which indicate certain
> > > parmamters have been achieved which we have defined as a more
> healthy
> > > style of fuctioning?
> > >
> > > Is that person "controlling" these parameters? Are the tests
> "crude".
> > > What would be a refined test in your opinion?
> > >
> > > If you have a thesis that there is state of awareness which has been
> > > called "enlightenment", then how do you go about quantifying it.
> Seems
> > > to me, one way to start would be to measure brainwaves.
> > >
> > > How would you go about trying to prove enlightenment? Or do you just
> > > discount this notion altogether? Science enablesus to assign
> objective
> > > criteria and proofs to those areas which previously were entirely
> > > subjective, last time I checked.
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
FairfieldLife-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
.

__,_._,___