Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00048)

In a message dated 03/07/04 11:28:39 AM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>I think the point may have slipped past you. What Naropa is saying, 
>if I understand him correctly, is not to think while meditating. The 
>object is not attained by cogitating. You are free to think while 
>not meditating even if following the Mahamudra path.
>
>Also, nihilism is a political philosophy akin to anarchism. What I 
>was saying is that a rock has no purpose. It just is. Since it is 
>not egocentric the way most humans are it does not imagine that it 
>has a purpose. It simply is, and it is because it is. Iys existence 
>requires no special justification.

[LHM]: Thanks for the clarifications, but I don't think Naropa's aphorisms 
apply to Gary Shwartz's research. :-) 

In any event, since meditation requires full attention to the mind (vide, 
Buddha's admonition for "mindfulness" and constant "vigilance") how do we 
separate that from "thought"? It seems to me that to direct one's attention or 
concentration, even on emptiness, is still in the realm of self determined and self 
directed thought.

Actually, "nihilism" is the negation of everything and has little to do with 
politics in its fundamental meanings related to theosophy or yoga: 
(from American Heritage dictionary)
ni'hil'ism n. 1. Philosophy a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all 
existence. b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing 
can be known or communicated.

As for the purpose of a stone and its existence in relation to humanity, 
doesn't theosophy say that all elements of existence will eventually evove to 
become man? In the Kabala there is a saying, "First a stone, then a plant, then an 
animal, then a man, then, an angel, and finally God." Thus, all monads have a 
purpose, and by reflection, "as above, so below," so does the universe itself.

Maybe we should think about all that, before we start meditating on it.

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>
>> Judging from the below commentaries on the Gary Schwartz 
>>experiments supposedly claiming to be "proof of life after death"... 
>>Even if the research was valid, it still wouldn't prove 
>>that claim -- but only that the mediums were somehow 
>>able to read the subjects minds. And, even that wouldn't 
>>prove anything -- since there would be no scientific explanation as 
>>to how such telepathy could occur; As, reductive science has yet to 
>>determine (beyond the neural correlates that prove nothing other than 
>>how the brain works) how perception itself works, or what is the nature 
>>and cause of conscious experience?
>>LHM 
>> 
>> >Initial Review
>> >http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
>> >

>> >Reply from Gary E. Schwartz [the researcher who conducted the 

>> >experiments]

> > >http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-schwartz.html

>> >

>> >Reply to Schwartz's reply

> > >http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-hyman.html