Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #1

Post by Swami »

In another discussion, I explained how everything is conscious. I also gave a general explanation on how we can know this. Diagoras asked a question about the tool of knowledge that I use. In this discussion I will go into more detail.
……………………..
What is my tool of knowledge?
One way to acquire knowledge is to use meditation, more specifically, a meditative state called 'samyama'. While in samyama, you've become so focused on an object (anything in the Universe) that you eventually "lose yourself in it" in a literal sense. While being one with an object, you get to have a direct experience of it. You experience what it's like to be it. The mind does not play a role because it is silenced so you are perceiving or experiencing without the filter of the mind and senses.

How meditation lead to knowledge?
The most important thing that I've learned through meditation is the nature of consciousness. I realized that everything is just one single consciousness (call it God) that manifests itself into the multitude of things that we experience. Here is the meditative process I experienced to confirm that this was true.

First, meditation enables me to perceive objects and all of reality as it is. This is a natural consequence of being able to perceive without the instrument that causes distortions, biases, misperceptions - i.e. the mind.

Secondly, with meditation, I am able to become one with an object. This enables me to experience what it's like to be anything. If I wanted to see if a rock was conscious, then I would engage in samyama (become one) with the rock. I would then be able to experience what it's like to be the rock. I would be able to feel some of the characteristics of a rock. If it were heavy then I would also have perceptions of being heavy.

Third and last, is that through the meditative state I can communicate with anything in the sense that I can tell an object how to behave. For instance, while being in a unified state with a rock I can tell it to move or do something and it will do it.

Again, the way this is all possible is if everything is conscious. I am able to connect with the consciousness of everything and experience it and even act with it.

Diagoras's question:
To the first part, does this mean the tool could be used to probe dark matter, for instance?
Yes, meditation can be used to probe dark matter and anything else in the Universe. However, this does not mean that I would discover some of the same types of facts that a scientists would discover. My approach has more to do with discovering the true nature of things and the effects I can have on it. Perhaps I can experience our conception of dark matter and experience what that's like and deduce some general facts from that.

The only exception to this is if you meditate on the aspect of God that involves omniscience. If we are God, then everything there is to know is already in us and it's just a matter of realizing it. Many have realized it after having brain injury... Look up "acquired savant syndrome". Others have experienced omniscient state during meditation, but it was only temporary - they weren't able to sustain it.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #2

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]
First, meditation enables me to perceive objects and all of reality as it is. This is a natural consequence of being able to perceive without the instrument that causes distortions, biases, misperceptions - i.e. the mind.
Since the "mind" (which is a manifestation of normal brain activity) is what allows humans and other animals to perceive, how is it possible to perceive without this instrument? It is the very thing that is doing the perceiving.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #3

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]
Yes, meditation can be used to probe dark matter and anything else in the Universe. However, this does not mean that I would discover some of the same types of facts that a scientists would discover. My approach has more to do with discovering the true nature of things and the effects I can have on it. Perhaps I can experience our conception of dark matter and experience what that's like and deduce some general facts from that.
I would have thought that ‘discovering the true nature of things’ would be precisely the kind of facts that a scientist would want. So, in the spirit of inquiry, during samyama, are you able to ‘focus’ in any way on something like dark matter that a person isn’t capable of interacting with normally? And would it take longer than normal to ‘connect’ with dark matter than say, a physical object in the same room?

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #4

Post by Swami »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Swami]
First, meditation enables me to perceive objects and all of reality as it is. This is a natural consequence of being able to perceive without the instrument that causes distortions, biases, misperceptions - i.e. the mind.
Since the "mind" (which is a manifestation of normal brain activity) is what allows humans and other animals to perceive, how is it possible to perceive without this instrument? It is the very thing that is doing the perceiving.
A few months ago I recommended that you try meditation. You did not accept my offer despite the evidence that I offered from your science. So here you have a question that I can explain using meditation itself.

Western science will tell you that you need your brain and senses to perceive. Meditation alone proves this wrong because with it you can perceive the contents of your mind without using the five senses. You also say that the "mind" itself is what does the perception. But again, meditation alone proves this wrong because I can reach a state where there is no mental input and all that's left is pure awareness. Being aware without mental input shows mind is not needed for perception.

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #5

Post by Swami »

Diagoras wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Swami]
Yes, meditation can be used to probe dark matter and anything else in the Universe. However, this does not mean that I would discover some of the same types of facts that a scientists would discover. My approach has more to do with discovering the true nature of things and the effects I can have on it. Perhaps I can experience our conception of dark matter and experience what that's like and deduce some general facts from that.
I would have thought that ‘discovering the true nature of things’ would be precisely the kind of facts that a scientist would want.
This is not the case when "materialism" is in the picture. In this sense, scientists are more interested in confirming their conception of reality as opposed to knowing reality as it is. So we can say that intellectual ego is a roadblock to truth.

Another roadblock is their limited tools of knowledge. The tools of knowledge of Western scientists are inherently limited and flawed. It is made to only detect things via the senses and mind. The Eastern thinkers discovered long ago that there are higher levels of perception that go beyond the senses, and even time and space.
Diagoras wrote:So, in the spirit of inquiry, during samyama, are you able to ‘focus’ in any way on something like dark matter that a person isn’t capable of interacting with normally? And would it take longer than normal to ‘connect’ with dark matter than say, a physical object in the same room?
You must first know about or encounter something before you can focus on it.

There are also different levels of meditation or focus. I find that it is easier to focus on things that I know of or experienced many times compared to things that I have little knowledge or experience of. The reason for this correlation between ease of focus and prior acquaintance with an object is because I already have some attachment with objects that I've experienced a lot. So reaching the samyama state with such object is much easier and quicker.

The only exception is if I meditate with my eyes open and view the object in front of me. But this has only happened with objects that I've had repeated unitive (samyama) experiences with already, and this familiarity and connection helps me slip into the state with the same object almost naturally. I believe enlightened teachers like Jesus and the Buddha experienced samyama quite naturally.
Last edited by Swami on Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #6

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 4 by Swami]
A few months ago I recommended that you try meditation.
Were you using some other name at the time? I don't remember any discussion with a "Swami" in the past.
Western science will tell you that you need your brain and senses to perceive.
Yes, it is the brain that creates consciousness and awareness. It is the "seat of mind." Without a brain, there is no consciousness as far as we know (at least no one has yet demonstrated that this is not the case).
But again, meditation alone proves this wrong because I can reach a state where there is no mental input and all that's left is pure awareness. Being aware without mental input shows mind is not needed for perception.
Awareness of what? Mental activity is what creates awareness, so you can't be aware of something without mental activity. That's like saying you can produce the pressure waves responsible for audible sound (ie. talk to another person) without using the mechanical components of the body's speech system.

The brain is capable of complex abstract thought, including convincing ones self that awareness is possible without it. But the physiology of the human body is understood well enough to know that the brain is the source of consciousness, awareness, perception, etc. Has anyone shown otherwise, outside of pure speculation?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Meditation (samyama) as a tool for knowledge

Post #7

Post by Swami »

DrNoGods wrote:
Swami wrote: A few months ago I recommended that you try meditation.
Were you using some other name at the time? I don't remember any discussion with a "Swami" in the past.
My old username was Razorsedge.
DrNoGods wrote:
Swami wrote: Western science will tell you that you need your brain and senses to perceive.
Yes, it is the brain that creates consciousness and awareness. It is the "seat of mind." Without a brain, there is no consciousness as far as we know (at least no one has yet demonstrated that this is not the case).
When you say "as far as we know", you are really saying that your view is as far as third-person materialistic science can take you. This is the problem with your science. If you want a science that has a wealth of knowledge and experience with first-person experience then you can find this in the Eastern worldview.

When I combine both worldviews together, I am left with the view that the brain is simply a "medium" for the consciousness.

When you have scientists who refuse to explore and experience an entire body of knowledge from the Eastern perspective, and that's on a matter that they are stumped on (explaining consciousness), it only highlights their cultural bias.
DrNoGods wrote:
Swami wrote:But again, meditation alone proves this wrong because I can reach a state where there is no mental input and all that's left is pure awareness. Being aware without mental input shows mind is not needed for perception.
Awareness of what? Mental activity is what creates awareness, so you can't be aware of something without mental activity. That's like saying you can produce the pressure waves responsible for audible sound (ie. talk to another person) without using the mechanical components of the body's speech system.
Pure awareness involves awareness of self - being aware of your own awareness.

There is also a difference between perceptual reality and objective reality. The latter involves how things exist independent of our perception of it. This is what scientists want to access but can't get around because the mind and the senses are always in the way. My worldview involves exploring reality in a pure conscious state (without mind and senses). In fact, you are not limited to simply perceiving it as separate from yourself since you can also become the object by merging it (samyama). This type of 'direct experience' or perception reveals that the objects of the world are derived from consciousness - they are like the objects and characters in a dream.
DrNoGods wrote: The brain is capable of complex abstract thought, including convincing ones self that awareness is possible without it. But the physiology of the human body is understood well enough to know that the brain is the source of consciousness, awareness, perception, etc. Has anyone shown otherwise, outside of pure speculation?
This goes back to the problem I explained earlier. You are unwilling to explore the Eastern perspective. You are unwilling to experience. Consider a negative argument/point that I've posted elsewhere. The inability of Western science to explain consciousness is more than enough evidence that it is not what they say it is. If my worldview is correct, then these challenges that your scientists face is to be expected.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Post #8

Post by Diagoras »

I find that it is easier to focus on things that I know of or experienced many times compared to things that I have little knowledge or experience.
Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. That makes more sense to me now. A couple more questions, if I may?

Assuming you are given say, an apple and a lump of granite the same size, and enough familiarity with them before and during meditation, is it then easier to ‘engage’ (for want of a better term) with them in subsequent meditative exercises?

And probably key to my learning, once you have gained that familiarity, do those same objects have to be present in subsequent meditation? Or can you connect even when they are in another room?

I will admit that my worldview is struggling with some of the concepts you describe, but hopefully you see I’m asking in good faith.

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Post #9

Post by Swami »

Diagoras wrote:
I find that it is easier to focus on things that I know of or experienced many times compared to things that I have little knowledge or experience.
Assuming you are given say, an apple and a lump of granite the same size, and enough familiarity with them before and during meditation, is it then easier to ‘engage’ (for want of a better term) with them in subsequent meditative exercises?
In my experience, I find that I can. The less abstractions I have to deal with then the better I am at reaching samyama state with an object. By less abstract, I mean something present (location terms) as opposed to something distant, something I've had lots of familiarity with vs. rarely encountered. I am sure there are other factors that I may not even know of yet, but one thing I have come to realize is familiarity and tangibility of an object helps me to focus better to reach samyama state. My motivation and the importance of an object is also a factor.
Diagoras wrote: And probably key to my learning, once you have gained that familiarity, do those same objects have to be present in subsequent meditation? Or can you connect even when they are in another room?
Objects do not have to be present for me to focus on them. I've focused on the general memory of an object as opposed to a particular object in my presence and I still was able to reach samyama state.

In principle, distance should not matter nor should any of the other factors I brought up earlier. It takes practice to reach a point where you can focus on anything, any time, and at any place while not letting your senses, your thoughts, and preconceived ideas distract you.
Diagoras wrote: I will admit that my worldview is struggling with some of the concepts you describe, but hopefully you see I’m asking in good faith.
This is an important topic. I began taking it seriously when I started trying to understand the nature and origin of consciousness. The single most important truth is to discover my true nature. I always recommend that people start here first.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Post #10

Post by Diagoras »

As things to think about pop into my head, I’d like to ask another thing (hopefully ok with you):

To use our rock and apple example, does the fact that one’s organic and one’s ‘simpler’ in internal structure make a difference? You mentioned at the start of the thread that in principle you could investigate properties like heaviness, but I don’t know if this extends to comparing objects over time.

I don’t expect you to do (or have done) investigations exactly like this just to answer, but, given the same apple a couple of weeks later, would you notice the difference - i.e. it’s slightly dryer, going mouldy, etc?

I’m imagining that the more practiced the samyana user, the more complex objects can be focussed on, and at further remove. Am I more or less correct there?

Post Reply