By the way, I know a close friend of mine (whom I trust) who is a very good student of Vethathiri maharshi (famous sage in india). He told me that his guru openly stopped a running train before his students and then started it again. He also told his students that he has to suffer something because of this open display but he did it to make them believe that siddhis do exist.
The reason many people fail in spirituality is that they try but make no attempt - Anonymous
Great thread guys,
I have wondered about this topic as well and one angle not mentioned so far is that proof of God or powers etc. would spoil the journey for some who are not ready to find out yet.
To elaborate, one view I have of life in this world is that it is play ground or a journey of discovery for the soul. In other words, some souls might come back to explore any number of things, what it’s like to live a virtuous life or what it is like to beg, steal or have 10 children with 6 wives. Some may want to learn why becoming attached to material experiences ultimately lead to suffering etc. By offering these souls information about their true nature or the true nature of the universe, may prevent them from being able to go through their life experiences sequentially and to find out about it for themselves. I think of it like reading the ending of a great novel before the beginning or middle. Putting something like siddhis or proof of God in someone’s face could spoil the great time they are having at this “earth party”!
One thing I have learned intimately is that giving someone else their truth or your version of it, robs them of their right to live and discover it for themselves.
I still couldn’t see the difference of claiming to have and actually showing siddhis, unless someone told you something but don’t want you to believe. Maybe that’s a girl falling in love would do when she says “no”, but probably not a great guru.
Allow me to digress a bit. Let’s start from something closer to our experience and still somehow related to siddhis. I would like to collect all kinds of esoteric (or once esoteric) practises/phenomenon which have a objective supporting evidences. Objective as opposed to those phenomenon which a few or a group of people claim it but appears to be only subjective. i.e. they cannot show it to the others, cannot provide a clear instructions for the majority to experience it, etc. Fortune-telling are, for example, not something which can be objectively analyzed. It fasinated a great no. of people while it is for most part just a scam which actually fails to be more accurate than any good guess. To convince som of my friends here, I have done a little bit of statistical analysis on the more “clearly stated” statements on one of the most famous fortune-teller here in Hong Kong—excuse me, those clearly stated ones only. Those predictions which are not properly stated are what these guys rely on, to have at least some successful guess to advertise on. You probably could guess what I want to say. But the methodology is more important: try to pick every precise predictions at the beginning and check the proportion which has come true. They never did that, right? Because in the long run their predictions are not better than any reasonable guess by layman-- except that they have much better ornamentations, of course. We only remember and talk about what has come true.
The boundary of subjective and objective are not strict, though. Let’s look at events which are somehow objective, not necessarily to the standard of science. For example, if anyone knows a reliable accounts of demonstration to some not-too-unreliable independent organizations, please tell us. But it’s clear enough that we would like to skip something like “I know someone who can heal over a distance”, etc. I don’t have any opinion on these subjective opinion, but I think objective reports are more helpful for an objective discussion to go on , and more inspiring as well because we can leave the “if you believe, fine. If you don’t believe, also fine” situation. Remember, truth doesn’t usually depends on whether we believe it or not. (“truth” here refer mainly to “truth” in a cognitive sense, not artistic truth /ethical truth. Whether there is someone who CAN demonstrate siddhis at will, is a pure cognitive question; whether siddhis is good or not is a bit closer to an ethical one.) If you don’t believe in siddhis, fine. If you don’t believe in the law of gravity, also fine-- But you will still die when you jump from the 70th floor to the ground. While everytime I hear some “fortune-tellers”(including many layman who copied what the “great ones” said) telling me not to do something, I force him/her to state the results clearly to avoid their stupid tricks, and then simply do what they ask me not to do to convince him/her that the result is wrong. It is usually we ourselves who create those results because we believe in them too deeply. We create something in our own mind, sometimes even supernatural phenomenon. Even great scientists like Isaac Newton fell into this kind of trap. That’s why we ask for objective accounts.
Let’s see how many objective things we can come up with. Frankly speaking, I don’t expect much response to this invitation because there simply aren’t much reliable accounts out there!! I cannot come up with much too, here are two:
1.research on the benefits of meditations, mainly TM. Not all are reliable, but enough reliable ones.
2. Stephen LaBerge¡¦s research and demonstration on Lucid Dreaming, something which was not taken seriously by scientists some time ago.
I should indeed include some links or references for them, but these two are too famous that you can find them out easily, right? I hope I can add some experiements conducted in Hong Kong/China later on, when I have time to collect and examine the sources. References should certainly be provided for less well-known research…
Dear david,
Yogani does not claim he has siddhis I guess because he knows they are a distraction and has said as much on here.My guru has not openly demonstrated siddhis as a way of convincing me , but as a way to help others who were ill.
L&L
Dave
‘the mind can see further than the eyes’
Let me add some more examples of what I consider some lesser known (or lesser noticed) ability of our body.
- Although we couldn’t regenerate a new leg when we lose one(while some animals like some spiders, centipede can), the bone and muscles grows at an incredible rate when they tried to recover from injury, much faster than when we simply exercise them.
- Some of our organs do regenerate. e.g. if a surgeon removes over half of the liver, the remaining tissue will grow back to around 70% of its original size.
- If a kidney is removed because of an organ donation, the remaining one will grow as much as 50% in the following week.
Obviously our body do have a huge potential. It simply doesn’t want to do things at these scales unless we are in trouble. The ability comes only when we are at great risk/having some serious injuries.
As I don’t see any evidences for “higher” siddhis, I would be quite satisfied if any esoteric practises can produce changes of our body at the above level.
Forgot one. At least two forumites have the ability to wiggle each ear independently.
Om.
Let me add some remarks for how we can check for at least some fake claims:
Sahaja yoga is well-known for its “generous” of selling/promoting experiences in which you can test for yourself. Unfortunately, as I’ve explained from my experience before, those are not at all convincing for those we are careful observer. What I’ve explained before, however, cannot judge THEIR experiences. Here I would like to add one extra example to show you the nature of THEIR experiences-- examples of getting "experience " because of their expectation.
The followers of Sahaja yoga say that even the photo of Shri Mataji have great vibration, which they say they can clearly feel the difference when meditate with one in the room. They say they can sense it when a photo of Shri Mataji is in the room. They emphasis that it’s not due to psychological factors. Now here’s a challenge for them: try putting 10 (or even better, more) photos in 10 envelops, with say 2 or 3 being the photos of Shri Mataji. Ask any of these guys to find those 2 or 3 out (to add some difficulty for them, don’t tell them how many of these are Shri Mataji). Of course they cannot (unless you poorly design this experiment). Their selling point is experiences, they emphasis that the experiences are for everyone, QUICK and real; and yet they don’t want to show you in my way, because they can’t. I’ve heard that some believers tried on their own, but failed–of course. Otherwise they will come out and show you— they want to.
Way to go Alvin! 
Advance in the name of Science and truth and take no prisoners!!!
Yes, this is a recurring theme: willingness to claim, show or ‘prove’ some sort of magical or extraordinary power, but being unwilling (really = unable) to ‘prove’ in the very ways that will actually prove (to a discerning and informed, scientifically aware critical thinker).
I say:
I have this amazing watch here on my wrist which is made of some extra-terrestial substance that is so hard that it cannot be broken by anything in this world. Look, there, I am pressing very hard on it and it is not breaking. There’s proof for you.
You say:
“Hmmmmm, I don’t find that convincing. Do you mind if I take it off your wrist and try to smash it with this hammer?”
I say:
No, I don’t ever want it to leave my wrist. And you’ll really hurt my hand if you bang the watch with a heavy metal hammer while it is on my wrist…
But I will let you try to smash it with this special soft light rubber hammer of mine, designed for the very purpose of this proof… and which won’t hurt my wrist while you use it…
A familiar pattern, eh?
Unfortunately they will usually dress their stupid teachings in a rather nice way, although it’s essentially the same as hard watch you’re describing, David.
Some are even more tricky, though. Yogi Bhajan’s “kundalini yoga” sound stupid in many aspects for But it’s not so easy to challenge them in a way as the Sahaja yoga case. What they claim is something more subtle to check. They claim that their yoga is 16 times faster than hatha yoga., and this is because their yoga makes use of the kundalini. You will find that their yoga seems to be able to heal just about everything, from cancer to liver/heart diseases. But they don’t promise any things specific. They just say something like “your liver/heart will be healthier by doing this and that” or “you will strengthen your aura”, etc. No special experiences. Not much room for you to test objectively (unless you really conduct a long-term experiment to see if their yoga is really 16 times faster than other hatha yogis’ teaching. But faster in what? You have to ask Yogi Bhajan in your prayer.)
David, I am looking forward to see your view point regarding the following post some time ago.
For me, of course, little progress can be done in such a short period. But I find my nostrils are opening up when I do spinal breathing (with mulabanda, which I just added a few days ago). I have nasal constriction most of the time, living in such a polluted city. It seems to be my first little but obvious experience. I need more experiments on this, though. I had discovered long ago that mulabanda with breath retention (in, for 1 min) can open my nostrils. But I think that may has an easy scientific explanation, and the effects are not as stable as what spinal breath is doing for me. Also, I feel some heat on my lower back during exhalation. But not too surprising for me: the feeling is not unique, I have it long ago when I did ujjayi breathing in my hatha yoga class, or in some kind of physical stretching or exercises. I think that’s due to some change in blood flow.
Dear alvin,
I don’t know how anyone can say anything is 16 times faster than anything and why 16? Bear in mind that Yogi Bhajan was not enlightened nor do their practices seem much different to what a lot of others are doing so I don’t know how they can make these claims.Still it takes all sorts.
L&L
Dave
‘the mind can see further than the eyes’
Hi riptiz,
I agree. I don’t see any evidence that their practices are any how better than hatha yoga. I am not in a position to comment on whether he is enlightened. (but frankly speaking, he looks more like business or religious leader) I can only say his “yoga” has too many irrational elements and fake (or overstated) claims in it. After removing them, it’s just about the same as your first class in hatha yoga plus something similar to push up. Not even as cleverly designed as most asanas in hatha yoga.
Also, I don’t think his practices can raise your kundalini any more than doing push up and jogging. 16 times faster? If physically, than he (or his sons) can probably break the world record of many sport games. okok, maybe not 16 times faster in terms of strength. Then he or at least some of his disciples can be much more flexible than Iyengar in just a few years, and he will live up to 90 at least (he died recently at an age of seventy something, just around the average for a eastern guy. Cause: heart failure, not because he dropped his body consciously.) okok, maybe not physically (or maybe he is just genetically bounded to be short-lived). Then he would have been enlightened 16 times, not like a business man anymore.
Why 16? he would really have a long answer for you if he’s still here!! He liked to say something which appears to be full of wisdom, but…Read some books on him and look specifically to his sayings: you will know what “ridiculous” means.
Want more? He encouraged much sex so that you will be attracted to his teaching. He and his disciple ask you to buy his “yogic tea”(That’s his contribution to us, he said. By the way, who know what that is? besides him?); creating some pop music which they say is very holy(take them to professional musicians, they will say, from the harmony to the whole musical structure to the performance, they are of nothing new, nothing special. Beethoven may be 16 times ahead of their music); infusing his own religious view-point into yoga while denying it; claiming to be the spiritual leader in the west hemisphere(well, maybe he was?), etc. I can’t comment on his yoga, but what would you think when you see something like that?
We (at least I) don’t want such nonsense. We want something useful, something practical, something honest, something that has results other than those due to placebo effects, religious beliefs, etc.
Dear Alvin,
Yes, I believe he made many claims ,some maybe true and some false and from what I have read it doesn’t seem much more than Hatha as you say.To state that one works directly with the shakti is also misleading I think.We can all state that if we are doing yogic practices because either deliberately or not we probably all stimulate shakti somewhere along the line.I’m trying to be careful with my words before I get bombarded with replies that accuse me of being misleading myself.In my opinion the only ones who can claim direct stimulation are those giving shaktipat because the aim is instant awakening of the Kundalini.
L&L
Dave
‘the mind can see further than the eyes’
I can’t judge ALL “shaktipat” methods. Here in Hong Kong there seems to be very few (if any) such practices. However, according to a wide-spread (and seemingly much respected) source in the following links, Sahaja yoga are considered as one of the paths using “shaktipat”.
(http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~keutzer/kundalini/siddha-mahayoga.html
OR http://www.think-aboutit.com/Spiritual/siddha_mahayoga.htm#9)
I think I don’t need to repeat my judgement on their methods (and why they “WORK”). That’s why I don’t have much expectation from other “Shatipat” methods as well. I may be wrong, but please show me, again, in the standard of scientific research. Sorry for those who really “experience” it first hand: I think the experience are mainly psychological. “Shaktipat” are, in my opinion, at most a method of initiating your pyshcological conditions due to its hypnotic effects.
As I am not familar with their exact methods. Anyone who knows more and is objective enough, please say something, especially about what I am going to propose to test their methods:
Ask at least 20 new-comers (again, more is better. I suggest 50). Let them listen to the required introductions, background, etc anything they need to receive shatipat. Finally, cover they eyes and preferably also their body (if “shatipat” cannot be blocked by a thin clothes : p). Without telling the new-comers, we arrange 2 guys, one being the guru, another one a martial art master who imitates him, (as a martial art master can imitate movement better, generally speaking) to do the “shaktipat”. (one “real” and one fake, although I think none is really “real”) We can arrange so that half of the new-comers receive the guru’s, and half the martial art master’s. Finally, ask which of these new-comers have “experience”. Of course you may say: not everyone are supposed to have experience. But we can still see whether there are correlations between those who have it and those who received the guru’s shaktipat. The interesting point I am looking forward to see is that, I think there would be enough of those who claim to have experience even though they received a “fake” guru’s shaktipat!!
Remember: all new-comers must be listening to the same introduction, preferably recorded in a videotype. And they should not be concealed to the fact that some of them will receive fake shaktipat. i.e., they should not know that we’re conducting such experiments. At least not before it. There are other precautions to avoid cheating, of course. But you know what I mean.
Before shaktipat can be justified in the above way (or other rigoros ways), anyone who is rational enough would not admit shaktipat has power other than psychological ones (much like the sahaja yoga case I described in several postings)
Alvin,
you have just described a single-blind experiment. To make it better still, it should be double-blind – those who question the subjects and record their responses and ‘score’ them, should also be unaware of whether the people received ‘real’ or ‘fake’ shaktipat. Then the analysis should be based on the ‘scores’ alone.
Also, the groups should be randomly divided of course.
Finally, the guru’s shaktiput should be mechanically analyzed and simulated of course. I got a hand-to-hand shaktiput sort of thing from a highly regarded Kriya Yoga guru. I could feel that his hand was vibrating a little; it is not hard to learn to make your hands vibrate. The ‘fake’ should make his hands vibrate in the same way.
I’m currently composing an answer to your earlier question, the one I ‘owe’ you.
-D
That’s the one I want to add at first. But we can gather them together first and then ask all of them at the same time. A single person are not likely to “induce” answer to 50 participants. For the follow-up survey on their experiences, though, that would have to be double-blind. I am confident that even without the toughest design of experiemnts, we would be producing enough “funny” claims.
I think there are some who claims to be able to do “shaktipat” without touching. At least not so much touching. Or we can ask them not to shake their hands physically. Imitating is too difficult. But a good martial artist can at least do something as “shocking” as those shaking hands of a guru. There’s probably enough for the purpose here.
Another expected aspects of things like “shaktipat”, “Reiki”, etc that worth studying: when most people say they have certain experiences and share them openly, the rest are more likely to raise their hands as well. We can do the experiment (this time double-blind is a must: the guru/teachers and the real participants) by using a group of fake participants and a group of real ones. We ask each fake participant to memorize a usual “experience” of shaktipat. We also decide beforehand a signal (better one that is not easily observed by the others) for them. At the end of the guru’s “shaktipat” (or other similar things to be tested), we give them the signal, telling them whether to “share” their memorized experience or not in those last minutes.
Let me skip the precise procedures to make it up to scientific standard and statistically convincing, and come to the result I expected instead: the response of the real participants depend on whether the fake group show response or not.
Yet another thing: the “nature” of the experiences reported depends on what the guru tell them to believe. Experiment: try with using the same introduction except the “expected experience” part (better use a video-player with good editing, to make sure everything else is the same). In the case of shaktipat, the guru, not just the interviewers, has to have no knowledge of which video the participants saw. Then record their experiences afterwards.
If I know any such methods as “shaktipat” that actually works, I will do my best to do similar experiments as above to convince the world that they indeed work. (esp if I’m one of the leading persons in the organizations concerned) Sorry, no such experiments properly done, you know why…
Alvin said:
If I know any such methods as “shaktipat” that actually works, I will do my best to do similar experiments as above to convince the world that they indeed work. (esp if I’m one of the leading persons in the organizations concerned) Sorry, no such experiments properly done, you know why…
By the way, the TM organization made a virtual industry of pseudo-scientific experiments designed to show that mantras chosen by the TM organization were more powerful than those chosen randomly. As the underlying premise is actually false, you can imagine how flawed the experiments were. Still, many thousands of people who cannot tell psuedu-science from science were taken in, and still are.
Finally as promised:
Originally posted by Alvin Chan
Nice thread, David. btw, I am curious to know your yoga practises and how you look at them. … but I would like to know to what extent yoga practises can offer our body and mind. In fact, I wish I am wrong in my understanding of its limitations!!
What we are both tending to do here is subject yogic experience to a scientific-skeptical standard of analysis.
A few preliminaries. Take a person (a subject) who has just experienced say, a wonderfully blissful mood. Suppose we don’t know why (someone may have spiked their drink with some drug, unknown to us and the subject). They tell us that they have experienced this blissful mood — do we say that they have imagined it? Not really. Regarding scientific-skeptical standards of evidence, we can scientifically trust an experience as an experience, it is only when it is interpreted in some way, or given extra cause-effect material that we have to ask for more evidence to question the interpretation. So, ‘I experienced this wonderful mood because my friend did a long-distance healing on me’ – the cause-effect relationship there should be questioned.
Similarly, a person does not really simply imagine that they had an experience of their body feeling very light. But they may have imagined that their body was suddenly lighter than usual. Similarly, a person may say without an objection from scientific scepticism that they have had an experience that was like doing astral travel. If they say that they actually did astral travel, and if that means something in particular in the physical world, our skepticism comes up.
So, to make it a little simpler than it is perhaps, there is the Interior and the Exterior. Each of us experiences our own Interior. We can keep safely to high standards of scientific-sceptical analysis by speaking of our experience of our Interior as our Interior. When we infuse our claims with claims or implications on the Exterior, we will be coming short in the scientific-sceptical standard of analysis until we back it up. Now Science (this kind we call ‘Science’ now in school) is all about the Exterior. As a society, we are incomparably more advanced in the Science of the Exterior than we are in the sciences of the Interior.
Let me label a Science of the Exterior ( and that is what ‘western’ science is) and E-Science, E for Exterior. A ‘science of the interior’, we can label an I-Science, I for Interior. Certainly, one can object to the use of the word ‘science’ in an I-Science, and/or ask, what exactly is an I-science. And that is in itself a very big subject which can be left to another day… And, Alvin, your recent post about what is ‘truth’ impinges on those questions…
What is called ‘Yoga’ is at once, in its manifestation in the world, any number and mix of the following:
- An I-Science, with many E-claims that are very spurious and which I think probably wrong, and certainly unproven (true magical siddhis and so on)
- An I-Science attended by much cultural-political interpretations, practices and social arrangements that are immature or overly-primitive, or, maybe more charitably, have had just their day (halo-ification of the ‘guru’and all the various cultic ‘religious’ psychisms that attend Yoga).
- An I-Science, attended by a small body of reliable E-Science about catalyzing ‘Enlightenment’
It is 3. that I really care about. And that, I would say, is what AYP is cultivating.
Now, an I-Science an be good or bad, refined or primitive in itself. In other words, it can have high quality or low quality. What I am aiming for (and hope to contribute to) is a quality I-Science with an attending, quality E-Science.
Now, to answer your question: What have I experienced? And, (I’ll add), how do I interpret what I have experienced?
As a result of doing mantra-yoga (the same kind of meditation as in AYP lesson 13 and Yogani’s book ‘Deep Meditation’, I experienced immediately very profound subjective effects of deep bliss, restfulness and a mind that was suddenly much quieter, and at the same time, my mind had changed in a way that is hard to express — let me just say that it was something like going ‘higher resolution’. If my field of experience was a screen, it went higher resolution. It was attended physically with a very profound automatic slowing of the breath.
I am convinced that this was, in words, the Savikalpa Samadhi of the Yogis. I am skeptical as you are, but I can say that Savikalpa Samadhi is no more imaginary than smallpox is imaginary. And I can also say that it is subjectively as significant an experience as recovering from smallpox would be.
I don’t so much like explaining what my experience of Samadhi was like, particularly in the written word. Because it is so hard to explain, and trying seems to be a chore. It is easier in person, and even then, hard.
But I can say what happened after it. Immediately my body started to change. I felt lighter and began to refuse heavier food. Within days my back complained that my matress was too soft (awakening intelligence in the body) and I had to change my matress. My sleep was deeper and more refreshing. My life was happier. I was almost ‘freed from all diseases’ (including leprosy and tuberculosis), as they like to say in all the ancient yogic texts.
Now, not everyone who does meditation by any means gets Savikalpa Samadhi. I recognize this. I also recognize that if the experience came in more slowly, we might not notice the changes so dramatically. Therefore, people who are doing deep meditation over a long period of time may be experiencing a more gradual and therefore less dramatic but ultimately just as profound a samadhi.
It’s like this (I have an earlier post about this) – if you live in the Antarctic and suddenly get a Mediterranean breeze, a sudden shift to Mediterranean inner weather, you will notice it instantly. If you migrate over the period of years from the Antarctic climate to Mediterranean climate you may not notice any sudden change at any point in time. But you may notice a profound change on reflection.
There is Samadhi-the-instantaneous-weather-change ( Savikalpa Samadhi ) and Samadhi-the-long-term-climate-change ( Nirvikalpa Samadhi, with all sorts of school-varying grades and definitions).
The theory is that if you can dip in Savikalpa Samadhi on a regular basis, your eventual migration into Nirvikalpa Samadhi is more or less assured.
When Yogani talks about ‘Inner Silence’, he is, from my perspective anyway, talking about Samadhi. This ‘Inner Silence’ can be the instantaneous-weather type or long-term-climate type, often without a need for a specific distinction.
So I was blessed with a very profound and very direct ‘proof’ of the power of Yogic practices simply because of my experiences.
Now, I haven’t had Kundalini experience except a little in the last year. Twice actually, one much more profound than the other – more like one-and-a-half times than twice. But even before I had it I ‘knew’ ‘Kundalini’ to be real because I knew Samadhi to be real, because I could see that the community that is talking about Samadhi (and is right about it) is talking consistently about Kundalini, and has every reason to be right about it. Or you could say I very sensibly believed in Kundalini because I knew the reliability of the community that was talking about it.
The tradition of Yoga is actually in a very junior state in terms of knowledge, though it has some of its sights in very good order. Here is what I believe about it (not all people who believe in Yoga believe in exactly these things):
-
- There is enlightenment.
- Enlightenment is biological.
- Enlightenment is a deep awakening of the body/mind’s intelligence.
- Yoga is a body of knowledge which, by its application, tends to catalyse enlightenment. In some ways it is more ‘Enlightenment Engineering’ than ‘Enlightenment Science’
- It is by no means a perfect and fully developed body of knowledge.
- Many try, but I think only some become significantly enlightened. The result is probably the product of good practices AND favourable genetics.
- I don’t think there is such thing as ‘fully enlightened’.
Hi Alvin and David:
Very interesting discussion. On the E-science side there are quite a few parameters which can be measured that verify something going on during and after deep meditation. And this kind of research has been done by many in a variety of traditions over the last 40 years or so.
One of the most obvious parameters is reduction of breath rate – reduction of oxygen consumption due to reduced metabolism. Most anyone who does deep meditation will at some point experience a reduction in breath rate, or even a complete stoppage. The thing to do with this when noticed is easily come back to the mantra.
Because the slowing or stoppage of breathing can be an attention grabber, it is covered in some detail in the new Deep Meditation book. I mention it here because it is an easy-to-spot E-science thing that verifies something is happening in deep meditation. It is completely automatic during certain stages of inner purification. In the kriya yoga lines a lot of attention is given to breath suspension. It becomes a goal, because it is considered to be analogous with samadhi. Maybe so, but we can be in samadhi while breathing and walking around too. That is a more advanced stage – in samadhi and being active in the world. I call it “stillness in action” – it is inner life pouring out into the world in the form of divine love. In AYP deep meditation, breath suspension is not the goal. It is a by-product of natural spiritual evolution. It is also an E-science indicator of inner developments occurring.
There are many other E-science parameters like this that can be measured, and I expect this will be the course of continuing scientific investigations on yoga practitioners in the years to come.
As for kundalini – that one has even more E-science parameters. However, many of these “symptoms” can be confused with mental and physical pathologies that have been catalogued in the medical profession (see recent posting touching on this). So the measurements on states involving energy movement in the nervous system and the many internal and external effects associated with this will require a lot of sorting out before the E-science and I-science aspects of advancing enlightenment in the ecstatic realms can be fully understood.
But there is no need to lament this fact. It is the way of science – application of means, resulting effects, refinement of means, more application, better effects, etc. Like that, round and round goes the optimization process to ever higher levels of useful application…
The Wright brothers managed to get that flimsy first airplane off the ground and fly it quite well, even though they knew little of aeronautical engineering. The fact that the airplane flew was enough to get the scientists working on understanding the natural principles involved and refine the application of them to the point where we can now walk onto a jet and go anywhere in the world in a few hours at will. Yoga will go through a similar evolution. Pretty exciting.
You are right David. Though yoga and other systems of spiritual development have been around a long time, we are engaged in a fledgling science here, with much yet to be learned. It is a science that has vast potential to improve the quality of life of all human beings, as much or more than any applied science humankind has availed itself of so far.
The guru is in you.
Dear Alvin,
When I received shaktipat I was not told of any results to expect.Guruji did not shake his hands on me but simply placed one thumb on my third eye and I felt absolutely nothing.I was fully awake and aware of everything happening to me for all four days that the shaktipat took place. ‘Usual’ experiences are different for everyone.
L&L
Dave
‘the mind can see further than the eyes’
Nice sharing, David. I can also feel the silence and peace from meditation, but not so deep, and not always have it. How long have you been practising? I mean meditation (or other practises as well??) and AYP respectively.
riptiz, your personal experiences do nothing to support the claims of “Shaktipat”. My parents or my girlfriend can drive me crazy (and with some “real” pain in my heart area) with just a single sentence. But they cannot do so on you, probably. So I would not feel surprise if some people really feel something towards “Shaktipat”. Afterall, psychological effects are linked to your physical sensations, just as the above example from my own experience. But the shaktipat guy CLAIM more. At least a good proportion of them (including Sahaja yoga, whether you consider their method “Shaktipat” or not) say that as long as you have the desire, you will get experience for sure. That’s certainly not true. I can even propose that as long as you are rational and critical enough towards their methods, you are sure to have NO real-enough experience. That’s different from, say, sport.
To support their genral claims, (or at least partially support) the only way is to do a controlled experiment (by a reliable third party!!)just as those I’ve describe, not anyone’s experience.
Before such experiments have been performed, I can only say, at most, that the whole teaching (including but not just the shaktipat part) of these guru is somehow like the literature like Shakespeare— they can have powerful effects on some people, but not everyone. And the effects, I believe (which you won’t agree), are due to psychological ones, although it can certainly extends to physical ones.
Just as in the court of most developed countries, it should be the one who make claims to prove what they claim (rigorously and objective, not just by personal experiences), in stead of the others to prove the otherwise.
By the way, the guru you’re describing are very suitable for such experiences as there are no body touch. (or at least no shaking??)
A question on the different “experiences” you’ve describing: how many of them have a obvious enough objective effects which are impossible to obtain in usual ways? If your character changes, that’s not enough because even reading a quote from Shakespeare or bible can do te same thing for some people. But if some of you turned into a genius suddenly and became one of the best writer in the world; or if someone proved the Goldbach conjecture/Riemann Hypothesis (both well-known unsolved problems in mathematics) because of a Shaktipat; or if your guru can treat, say at least 50% of the cancer patients who are coming to him; that would be objective enough for the “serious” people, for the whole world to start looking at “Shaktipat”. It’s not to say that these things are more important, but they can certain serve as a rather objective evidence of the effectiveness of “Shaktipat”.