What are the obstructions?

05. Satsang Cafe - General Discussions on AYP
21

Hi Scott and David,
If I am in room, and I see a being made of light enter, and I say nothing, and the person sitting near me says “Wow, look at that, can you see it?”, and I say yes, and then another person walks in and says " Oh my God, what’s that? How beautiful", then can we say this is a hallucination? A group hallucination? 3 people seeing the same thing that isn’t there, all at the same time, in the same place, from 3 different angles? This kind of thing has happened to me often. As more and more of us start to open up, this kind of thing will become commonplace. What is now considered subjective, and questionable, will become objective, and normal. The only thing that makes something part of our objective reality is that it is part of our shared experience.
I find this a very interesting thread. Chiron asked a simple question, and three very different answers came, one on the physical level, one on the emotional/mental level, and one on what I would call the etheric level. Who is to say which is right?
I should say Scott, that I really like your description of how you see blockages working on a physical level, in terms of connections of neurons, and I think there is a lot of truth in that. If this were the whole truth though, and all there was to it, then it could have very serious implications. It would mean that technically, if brain surgeons could work out which neurons were miss-firing in the brain and connected nervous system, and under surgery, re-align them, they could potentially enlighten someone, permanently. I just don’t think this would work. The reason I don’t think it would work, is because of the way I understand the nature of the blockages, and the way that I believe energy patterns move between dimensions.

This is true, but then modern scientists know little about yoga and lack some of its richness. I also don’t think that modern scientists are able to agree on how many dimensions there are. Maybe they should ask the yogis? :slight_smile:

This is a very good question David. You are right, there is a very objective test. You see, it is not just me that feels the chakras open, the person I do it to feels it to. This means that someone who is blindfolded could say where my hand was, even though I was not touching their body. It makes the recipient look psychic, which of course we all are. You could wear the blindfold and get the million dollars :grin: Tempted? I am sure many people can do this, it’s not exactly new. Even Scott can do this, and he is a die-hard believer in the single dimension theory! :wink: So would I do it? Probably not. I am quite broke right now, and a sweet million would really help if it came my way. But I don’t think it is the way forward. I would be into demonstrating things in public, if I thought it would help. Not for money though, but just to open up people’s minds. At the moment, I haven’t got a lot worth demonstrating, apart from some cheap short range chakra-opening trick! :slight_smile:

The yogis use words like “body” and “world”. So they say things like, the chakras are focal centres or prana, which exists in the pranakosha, and the pranakosha exists in the pranalokha. Kosha means body, and lokha means world.

You are right Yogani, I don’t think we are going to agree on this one, but then every discussion has two sides, and it makes for a richer world. :sunglasses:

I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. I think it is the only way to progress in yoga.
Christi

22

Christi,

I don’t think seeing a being of light would imply any other dimensions. If you are seeing something with your eyes, that is physical…especially if others are seeing it, as well. It could be that awareness of the commonly unseen things in the world is heightened by yoga…but when the things are seen, is it really so wise to determine those things as “not of this world” when they are clearly operating in the world?
Cool experience, by the way. I’ve never personally had such a powerful experience with other people around to witness it with me!

I do think that if brain surgeons were able to know the body intimately, they could enlighten someone simply by moving things around. That’s what we’re doing anyway, when we do our practices. We put our heel on our perineum, both physical, and it influences the “subtle”. But anyway, saying that brain surgeons would have to re-align misfiring neurons is very complicated…of course that will never be a possibility! So I don’t think it’s possible, at least in the near future, for brain surgeons to know the body intimately enough to do anything useful surgically. AYP does the trick, instead.
Just because brain surgeons are incapable of doing what AYP does, does not make the scientific way of looking at the world any less noteworthy.
Anyway, it’s more possible that a drug could be invented which would resemble the process of a light kundalini awakening, and later on you could up the dose to handle more…thus becoming enlightened and experiencing all of the “dimensions”. But even the invention of such a drug is highly unlikely…unless the world as a whole got turned on to the process of yoga, and it became a big source of business.
I do think that the entire process of yoga can happen as a result of certain things occurring physically. It can also take place subtly (spinal breathing for instance), but I think even laboratory testing could show how the subtle effects are coordinating perfectly with physical processes.
One thing that’s nagging at me though, is the spiralling ida and pingala. I’m not going to say it has no equivalent process on the physical level, because I don’t know all about the physical level…but a physical process that correlates with it certainly isn’t well known.

23

Scott said: One thing that’s nagging at me though, is the spiralling ida and pingala. I’m not going to say it has no equivalent process on the physical level, because I don’t know all about the physical level…but a physical process that correlates with it certainly isn’t well known.
Scott, did you read my point about the ‘schema’? There’s no need to find a direct physical correlate to the spiralling energy. The spiralling energy just has to be a schematic view of an internal process.
Christi said: This means that someone who is blindfolded could say where my hand was, even though I was not touching their body. It makes the recipient look psychic, which of course we all are. You could wear the blindfold and get the million dollars Tempted? I am sure many people can do this, it’s not exactly new. Even Scott can do this, and he is a die-hard believer in the single dimension theory! So would I do it? Probably not. I am quite broke right now, and a sweet million would really help if it came my way. But I don’t think it is the way forward.
OK, (please don’t let this annoy you, my friend, if you don’t like it – it’s challenging but not mean in spirit) you claim that our scientific world-view is mistaken, and, implicitly, you believe it is a good thing that we learn that it is mistaken. And you seem to show some emotional patterns which suggest that you would enjoy seeing the scientific community turned on its heads and eat its words. :slight_smile: And you believe you have a proof that it is mistaken, which you can show to Randi, get the immediate attention of the world scientific community, turn the scientific community on its head overnight and make it eat its words, boost the scientific respect for yoga and spawn investigation into it (and also give you a million dollars which could end your broke-ness and give you a lot left over for worthy causes, including Yogani’s say, who made significan financial sacrifices to help us).
But that is not the way forward. :slight_smile: Why not? I can only see immense good things coming from this proof and no bad ones.
The following is an on-going dialog (I’m not necessarily saying you belong exactly in the position of the ‘psychic’ here):
Psychic: You scientiest/skeptics really should believe IT (our alternative claims about the structure of reality)! It would enhance your science!
Skeptic: But we see no reason to believe that you are not simply mistaken about it.
Psychic: Oh no, we have objective proofs that IT is true.
Skeptic: Oh great, show me!
Psychic: Oh no, ummmmmm. The world is not ready.
Skeptic: You started by saying that we scientists really should believe it, that it would enhance our science. Now, the world is not ready? What? We really should believe it, yet the world is not ready to see your proofs???

24

I read it before and it didn’t click, but I’ve got it now, and I agree with you that’s a possibility. What do you think the internal process is, though, for the spiralling ida and pingala nadis?

25

Scott asked:
What do you think the internal process is, though, for the spiralling ida and pingala nadis?
I have no idea Scott. :slight_smile: This stuff is all probably way beyond any mechinism that we know anything about.
By the way, we don’t necessarily have to relate the chakras directly to endocrine glands, though they may have one each, and you may be right that ‘open’ chakras correspond to secretion at the chakra’s gland. From my point of view, another take on chakras is possibly brain-body systems, governing that part of the body. For example, the ‘root chakra’ is a brain-body ‘system’ governing survival. The lower animals would have lower chakras by virtue of the fact that they have the lower brain-body systems.
In our schematic (‘subtle’) view, we may be able to ‘see’ our own brain-body systems, and we see them as chakras.
Christi said:
I also don’t think that modern scientists are able to agree on how many dimensions there are. Maybe they should ask the yogis?
Modern scientists are in complete agreement about how many physical dimensions there are – three. If you are thinking of string theory, it’s a red herring for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it doesn’t have good status because it is not working. If you are thinking that the extra dimensions of ‘string theory’ provide a basis for a ‘spirit realm’ where spiritual things happen, I’m afraid you are in the domain of a category error. The extra dimensions of ‘string theory’ (if they ever work) is such a specialized concept that it really has no correspondence to such a thing.
Asking the yogis would be like going into the rain forest looking for an opinion on whether the housing slump will cause deflation next year.

26

I thought there were 4 dimensions of reality:
1st - Past
2nd - Present
3rd - Future
4th - The state of consciousness that controls all three
1st - Conscious State
2nd - Dream State
3rd - Deep Sleep State
4th - The state of consciousness that controls all three
VIL

27

Hi Guys,

When I see a being of light, it is not with my physical eyes, it is with my spiritual eyes (eye?). This means that it would not matter if my eyes were open or closed, I would see the same thing. Inner vision is (they say) connected to the opening of the ajna chakra. The light that a being of light emits is a spiritual light. This means that the light is not made up of photons. When we look at a physical object, we are seeing the light (photons) that are reflected from that object. If there is no external light source, then we see nothing. The photons that are reflected, enter our eyes, and we “see” the object. With a light being, the being has no physical body, and so, no mass. It does not reflect physical light. This means that if 3 people see a light being, and one of them pulls out a camera and takes a photo, there would be no light being in the photo. In a similar way, if the light being stood (they don’t really stand, they kind of float) in front of a mirror, there would be no reflection of the light being in the mirror. Light beings do not reflect light, they emit light. So we are talking about a different kind of light, a light that you can only see with your inner vision. With normal vision, to see something, it has to be in front of you, or to the side. With spiritual vision we have 360 degree vision. Enlightened people also emit this light. It shines out of them. If your inner vision is open, you can see it. They are not called enlightened beings for nothing. :wink: . This is why the saints are depicted with halos, and an aura of light around their bodies. You see these images in churches all over Europe (I have never been to America but I imagine it is the same). Prana also emits this light, which, I believe is what is shining out of an enlightened person.
If I am right about this light, then we either have to talk about one physical world, which contains two different forms of light, which behave in two completely different ways, or a physical world and a spiritual world (and possibly several spiritual worlds), with different kinds of light in the different worlds.

Please write whatever you like. I am not at all attached to my view of the world, and as I said to Scott, I am quite ready to believe I am wrong. And it wasn’t that long ago that I didn’t believe in charkas!

Yes, to all of those. There is history involved here. I do believe that the current scientific world-view is mistaken. And I believe that human spiritual evolution is being restricted by that world-view. Don’t forget that in Europe, religious teaching has been heavily suppressed by science for hundreds of years. Even this year in England, scientists are pressuring the Government to put a ban on religious teaching of any kind in schools. I think the whole process has caused a great deal of suffering, and the loss of an incredible amount of spiritual wisdom. So yes, there is an emotional element. I do believe that one day scientist will discover the existence of other dimensions (or worlds/ planes/ realms), which operate under different scientific laws, different forms of light and gravity, and the existence of beings that live in those realms.
I very much hope that this will happen as I believe it would be a huge step forward for everyone. It could be the beginning of a reconciliation between science and religious teaching in the west. And the beginning of the end of a great deal of unnecessary suppression. Do I really think that any scientists would “eat their words” if this happened?. No. I don’t think there would ever be an official apology, so to speak, but that doesn’t really matter.

I don’t know much about string theory. I am sure you know much more. But if this is true, then it is a shame. Maybe we are not seeing the beginnings of a breakthrough in science. Or maybe scientists have got it right all along? J
I would enjoy seeing a breakthrough of this kind, but not in any malicious way, or out of contempt, but because I would see it as a progressive step in human understanding of the universe.

If I were to put my hand near your body, whilst you sat in a chair blindfloded, and you were able to tell me where my hand was because you felt energy in your body spiralling near my hand, and you did it a hundred times and were right every time, would you say “Ah, now I see that the current scientific world view is mistaken. There obviously is a spiritual dimension as well as a physical dimension”?
Or would you go along with Scott and say, there obviously are aspects of the workings of atomic energy (or energy in general) in the physical world that we don’t yet fully understand? I think most people would agree with Scott.

There are a few issues here.

  1. Is Randy completely impartial? Or does he set out to prove that psychics are frauds?
  2. If I did this, it would be no good if I were simply to say if someones chakras were opening or not, after all, what proof would there be? So the person on the receiving end would have to say where my hand was. And, they would have to get it right a significant proportion of times. Now, I have no doubt that someone who is experiencing a degree of ecstatic conductivity already, would get it right nearly every time, but that doesn’t apply to the majority of the population. In other words, like kechari and sambhavi, it would only work on people who are already kundalini awakened to a certain degree. Other people may feel nothing. So if Randi wanted me to preform this objective test on a random sample of the population, he would “prove” me a fraud. On the other hand, if I could select who was to be on the receiving end, it would work.
  3. There is a bigger problem. You see Yogani can levitate. As can other people who are on this forum. People often write in with their levitation problems, and Yogani gives them very good advice. Levitation is a far more impressive demonstration of the workings of spiritual energy than anything I could do. If Yogani needs the money, why doesn’t he go and levitate in front of Randi? I also believe that Yogani can do some far more amazing things than levitation. He could go back every day and simply notch up the millions. But I don’t think he will. Why not? My guess would be that he thinks that the mindset of humanity needs to progress at a certain pace. Too much, too fast could freak people out. Also, people could become obsessed with spiritual energy, and using it for the wrong reasons. This is why, for a very long time, Yogis have advised people against demonstrating siddhis. Now I realize that what you are suggesting I do, is not the demonstration of a siddhi, but I think the same reasons still apply. I take my lead (to a certain extent) from spiritual teachers that I respect. I don’t see any of them up there on the Randi show (if it is a TV programme) demonstrating the manifestation of spiritual energy in the physical realm, even to raise money for charity. So for now, I will decline (even for a million dollars). If you think these reasons are invalid, then I may reconsider (I am easily bought :grin: ).
    Christi
28

So Yogani you can levitate :question: :astonished: That’s new to me i don’t remember you making that claim or anyone else at the forum for that matter perhaps I am getting the wrong end of the stick here but I am confused now, so Christie please clarify for me and point to the posts where this claim has been made
Richard

29

1. Is Randy completely impartial? Or does he set out to prove that psychics are frauds?
Depends on what you mean. The thing about science is that the partiality of the experimenter means nothing – provided only that the experiment is correctly designed. See the bit below about Bienveniste.
And ‘frauds’ is not necessarily the right word. They may just as often be misguided or inadvertently deceived by their experiences. They are perhaps even more often simply deceived than actual frauds, though sometimes combinations of both.
2. If I did this, <SNIP> On the other hand, if I could select who was to be on the receiving end, it would work.
No problem selecting your person. You could go as a pair and demonstrate your paranormal power.
Why not do it in the dark, if it is done by emission of light?
Truth is, these claims have been made before, and the claimers have always failed a correctly designed experiment.
Some years ago a ‘scientist’ called Bienveniste made a big stir about being able to prove that water has ‘memory’ (in support of homeopathic claims). His team was indeed getting these results, but they were measuring them themselves. When they were brought in front of Randi, Randi spotted a flaw in the experiment design and adjusted the circumstances in no way other than to eliminate the possibility that they were either (a) being frauds or (b) deceiving themselves. Any objective scientist would agree that this is what he did. When this modification was made, they were no longer getting the results — they suddenly failed miserably to be able to ‘prove’ that water has ‘memory’.
This doesn’t tell us whether they were frauds or just self-deceiving (letting their emotions and bias affect the scores) or both; nor does it matter which Randi believed which they were doing. What does matter is that they were doing one of the two and it was detected by Randi, and all of their claims of having such a proof were ended.
You’ve just put Yogani up on an enormous pedestal. Let’s see how he responds. BTW, there is what is called ‘yogic flying’ but everything I can see about it indicates that it is muscle-initiated and is really just like hopping.
I don’t believe that you or anyone else on this earth actually can demonstrate/prove paranormal powers, though there may be many who, in error, believe that they can. But most of all, I find the line “I can prove it; it is time for the world to believe it; but it is not time for the world to see my proof” to be utterly absurd and illogical.

30

Hi All:
Ahem, read all about the spectacular miracles here: http://www.aypsite.org/76.html
Those are the ones we all are cultivating. :slight_smile:
It happens to be the subject of the next book being worked on here – Samyama. It is about clearing out the inner obstructions more than about making miracles, though one naturally leads to the other in its own way and time. Not by our will – by the divine will flowing out through us with fewer impediments.
The greatest miracle is that we (every one of us) can become infinite channels of divine love like that. It is a non-doing, and the outcome does not belong to us. At the same time, it is us.
The guru is in you.

31

Hi Yogani,
it might be a good time to spell out to Christi that you cannot (as of yet anyway) levitate in any true sense of the word, meaning remain suspended in the air in defiance of the laws of gravity, in such a way as to be able to prove levitation to Randi in the lab. Just in case he thinks that you are just being modest, since your post above and the lesson you link to don’t constitute a direct, unambigous denial. :slight_smile:
If you leave any room at all for being mythologized on this matter, you will be. Trust me. :wink:

32

Hi David :slight_smile: - I just pick your quote not specifically with respect to your post as its a good summary of the (soi-disant) ‘scientific’ position.
I would recommend you check out the work/books of Dean Radin who is a pukkha scientist who has written a couple of books on the meta-analysis of parasychological experiments over the past few decades. I too believed that the “evidence” was not there… but it turns out it is (he also has a chapter on why the media/‘science’ deems it not to be). He also (as I dimly recall) has something on how the so-called scpetics actually have no qualifications in science whatsoever (Randi is a magician and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject :astonished: ).
Alternatively check out the PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) project which has proven beyond any doubt the interaction of mind and matter.
So taking your position of examining the evidence I would challenge anyone to move beyond belief and onto the evidence… you may well be surprised (I certainly was!!).
Taking positions on this and relating “beliefs” (as opposed to direct knowledge) I would venture to suggest is actually just indulging in prejudices or a priori lashing oneself to some philosophical mast… I should know I did it rather well for 43 3/4 years :grin:

Well I wouldnt go that far myself (its rather illogical non-sequitor after all :stuck_out_tongue: ). However I have seen around the net quite a bit of claiming “I could do this if I wanted to but I dont need a million bucks” from people who claim to be able to do this that or the other (which one rather suspects will not hold up to scrutiny)… Actually the whole million bucks thing is a great gimmick to attract the American psyche (if someone is “for real” how would they not go for the dollars eh?!? :clown_face: )
…on the other hand all Yogani seems to do is to promise to make people happier, healthier and better citizens… something which all evidence indicates he is rather succesful at :wink:
peace
Mike
ps I don’t entirely see why Yogani should feel pressured into making any (egoic) statement of his abilities or otherwise… as I say making many many people happier and creating open-source ‘secrets’ is a real siddhi in my book :sunglasses:

33

He also (as I dimly recall) has something on how the so-called scpetics actually have no qualifications in science whatsoever (Randi is a magician and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject ).
Mike, this stuff doesn’t matter and it is in fact in many ways good that Randi is a magician rather than a scientist. For a long time, scientists had the wool pulled over their eyes by ‘psychics’ simply using powers of deception. The scientists were just not clued into the methods of illusion. With Randi on the team, everything changes.
and the guy who writes the Sceptic column in the Scientific American doesnt even have a degree in a science subject
Again, it doesn’t matter; science is not a priesthood. Your ability to scrutinize claims scientifically is what matters and you can have it without a degree. I had it before I got mine, and I’d have it even if I didn’t get mine.
People can write up anything on the Internet or anywhere else. I believe that if I could genuinely prove psychic power ( in front of Randi or his likes), I would do it and, in the interest of scientific knowledge and the advancement of mankind, make the headlines in every paper in the world within a week. Science would be turned on its head, and scientists would be glad of something new to study.
There is a reason, however, why this isn’t happening.
ps I don’t entirely see why Yogani should feel pressured into making any (egoic) statement of his abilities or otherwise… as I say making many many people happier and creating open-source ‘secrets’ is a real siddhi in my book
I’m not sure what ‘egoic’ means here, but saying, “No, sorry, I don’t actually have that supernormal power” certainly hardly qualifies as egoic ever.
A lot comes down to whether you think mythologization of a human being is a good thing or not. It certainly can be delicious for the human being in question, and delicious for the believers if they really need to believe in something even if very false and misleading. But delicious is not always good.
I generally believe the mythologization of a human being to be en evil. In that, my Judaeo-christian upbringing and my scientific mentality are in complete harmony.

34

Hi David

I wouldn’t go as far as to say an evil. But I would say that it could be unhelpful. But nobody is mythologizing anyone here. A myth is something that is not true. The mythologization of a human being means making someone out to be someone they are not, such as by attributing abilities to someone that they do not have. No-one here is doing that. Saying that someone can levitate, isn’t putting them on a pedestal.
If you look at the way Yogani writes (or listen to the way he speaks), you can tell that he is a really down-to-earth (excuse the pun) guy, and that he is really honest and open with people. I am sure the last thing he would tolerate is mythologization.
It’s a big world… bigger than we think.
Christi

35

Fair enough – an evil, or unhelpful – it’s really a matter of degree, isn’t it?
Saying that someone can levitate, isn’t putting them on a pedestal.
I just disagree with that. I think saying that someone can levitate is putting them on an enormous pedestal.
I’m enjoying the conversation with you Christi — I respect the way we can disagree (sometimes strongly – and I’m not always a ‘smoothie’ in disagreement, like other people) without anyone getting hostile. I haven’t always enjoyed the same thing with others here on this subject. Certainly, that should be one of the fruits of yoga — to be able to disagree without hostility. :slight_smile:

36

“Certainly, that should be one of the fruits of yoga — to be able to disagree without hostility.”
No it shouldn’t so shut up.
:stuck_out_tongue:

37

I’m definitely with David on this topic (still). Except for putting Yogani on the spot…I don’t want to do that.
But besides that - I think it’s time for the world to see what all this talk is about. If there is anything paranormal that someone can demonstrate, there’s no good reason why they won’t show it to others. Saying, “the people will become obsessed with this power” or something similar is a guess at best, and most likely just a delusion of grandeur. No one knows how society will react to certain things (unless of course, they developed that specific siddhi for knowing how society will react :clown_face: ).
David, I think you’re right that scientists all over the world would want to study something like this. It would be on the front page of every newspaper. It’d be on Oprah. :stuck_out_tongue:
I am open to the possibility that someone can levitate. It wouldn’t blow my mind if I saw it. I don’t think I’d become obsessed over it…at least not any more obsessed than I am now. Yes, of course I have attempted to develop that ability. I want the million dollar prize too! But the ability has not been developed…and it’s very questionable whether it has for anyone else.
I will tell you all one thing…when I am able to levitate I’m going for that prize! :slight_smile:

38

Christi,

I see lights too, due to the opening of the ajna chakra…I don’t refer to them as beings. It seems to me they are more like chemicals being released than anything objectively real. I may need more experience, as well as more opening.

That is a nice description.

I’m leaning towards the one physical world, with different forms of light. You know there is another kind of light which we can’t see but some animals can? UV light. That isn’t on another dimension…its effects are obvious to us in the physical realm although it remains invisible to humans. The same thing could be explained for why if you take a photograph of a spiritual being nothing shows up…perhaps the camera isn’t capable of capturing that form of energy. But perhaps that energy is physical, nonetheless.
Or perhaps you are right, that there are actually multiple dimensions, some of which don’t completely connect with the physical.

39

Thanks David, I enjoy conversing with you also, as with everyone else on this forum. I appreciate honesty (even Scott’s honesty :slight_smile: ). It is good to be challenged sometimes.
Actually I find this forum quite an amazing place, like a breath of fresh air. :slight_smile: This is important stuff that we are doing here… keep up the good work everyone. :sunglasses:

I think it depends what your reality is. If you are only interested in manifesting your true divine nature, then some guy levitating wouldn’t impress you very much (not for very long anyway). If you think that Newtonian physics has all the answers then you would probably be quite impressed (and maybe a little disorientated). If I met someone who could really surrender to the divine within them, that would impress me far more. Then I would get my really big pedestal out and get down on my knees :grin:
Christi

40

Scott said: I’m definitely with David on this topic (still). Except for putting Yogani on the spot…I don’t want to do that
Scott, I think ‘putting Yogani on the spot’ is a somewhat strong and loaded phrase for what I did. I pointed out, quite correctly, that his post and message still leave definite room for people to believe that he can levitate. He’s a self-professed ‘ordinary guy’, according to those very posts, and I can’t agree that asking an ordinary guy, who wants it to be genuinely believed that he is an ordinary guy, to deny that he can levitate, in the face or people who may tend to believe otherwise, is ‘putting him on the spot’. :slight_smile:
The sense I got from the radio interview is that Yogani is an ordinary guy who wants it to be genuinely believed that he is an ordianary guy; which to my mind necessitates that he is not put on the spot by being asked to make it clear that he cannot levitate, despite claims by forum members to the contrary.
Am I not making perfect sense?