Looking for a different kind of story to think about during the Thanksgiving holiday? One that’s not yet all over the blogosphere? How about trying Ram Bomjon on for size.
Ram Bomjon is, his followers say, a new buddha. Buddha meditated for 49 days under a pipal tree. Ram Bomjon, it is said, has been doing so for six months, and continues to do so today, even after being bitten by a snake – and he is just a 15 year-old boy.
Is it for real? Well, I’m suspicious Ram’s closest followers won’t allow outsiders in to inspect the boy – not even doctors. Of course, it makes for a good story, which is why thousands of people are making pilgrimages to the site. What do they expect to get out of the trip? What will taking a look at the boy do for them? Does enlightenment rub off?
Before we get too critical of the pilgrims in Nepal, we ought to remember that similar numbers of people here in the United States will make pilgrimages, and pay money, to see Mariah Carey.
As you take a second helping of Thanksgiving Dinner, you might want to think about Ram Bomjon, and the legend of six months without a bite to eat. But then, you also might want to think about a community of people in Nepal who are making an awful lot of money from the visitors who are coming to see this teenage mystic, and consider how thankful they are for that.
Despite that he is getting food and water at night and going to the toilet, i still respect the fact that this 15 year old boy sits during the whole day with out moving.Man I can’t sit still for more than fifteen min.
so I have to give some respect to this regardless. What does this kid think about all day? is he druged? This is impossible unless he is made of Wax.
The reason why you can’t sit still is because you have to balance out all the negative feeling that you have created in your body from thinking during the day. If one is in the moment and truly meditating he is not thinking. He is not wasting any energy because he is in the moment (the moment is made of energy) and therefore has no need to eat or drink. And the older you get the more you have to think about, so I guess you must not listen very much. You also probably have problems listening to what you are reading too because I already mentioned why one has to eat in the previous paragraph. You probably believe that it is also possible to think and listen in the same time….And you probably do that all the time too. Have you ever read something while you were thinking about something else? I have and for some funny reason I can’t remember what I just read. Which means that one can only remember doing one thing at a time including thinking….
Bart you are absolutly on target.
ok ……lets leave the tree alone…Buddha did not hide behind a curtain. lets respect him, but everyone should stand back and observe from a distance…no interference. Thus avoiding all these people who doubt.
apparently the investigation has been conducted on this boy and the Buddhist consultative committee have ruled that he has abstained from food for over 7 months now and that he is in a deep state of meditation. They fell short of actually stating that he may possibly be on the verge of enlightenment but it’s still a distinct possibility….
“Apparently?” I don’t see it anywhere in the news. Can you give me a citation? I’d be interested in reading it.
I saw something about this, this morning (AEST), they mentioned something about the Buddhist council and their investigation. It said that he the boy was very weak but that they had no reason to believe that this was in any way corrupt.
Thanks Ben. I am glad you saw that as well. Sorry Jim it was on Fox, so I can’t provide a citation, but I am sure something will be on the net within hours.
Why did my last message dissapear?!!? I have seen this news article this morning also.
That is correct I saw it also.
i have studied the history of buddah doing shaolin kung fu for 10years you learn alot about
meditation leave this boy alone to many people are getting involved in this boys life
and his future to become buddah is at risk its been all over the news, papers billboards
if he fails you will all be to blame for his failure…….
Darren,
According to Buddhist teachings I’m familiar with, whether or not Ram Bomjon becomes a Buddha is determined by his accumulation of merit over eons of practice in countless past lives, not what people say over the internet.
Apparently, your Shaolin Buddhism says differently. I have never heard of this doctrine. Please, enlighten us.
There was more on that Buddha boy this morning…this time they said that he actually opened his eyes…and when he saw all the people standing around and started crying…poor little thing…He kept asking for his mummy…aaahhh!!! Then he asked for a Big Mac a quarter pounder, family fries and a coke…isn’t that sweet??? What a great kid.
he just wants to go home and have some fried chicken and corn bread with hot sauce go on ram go home and have a big feed and a bath your dog milo misses you to he hasnt eatin for days and mums worried he may starve to death…..
Ram…Darling…if you can get access to the net and can read this message (even though it is in english)…Please come home!!! We all miss you here…Milo, Pa and even Uncle Joe with the Wonky leg. I am cooking grits and fried rabbit’s testicles with extra chili just the way you like ‘em. Come home sweety …evn if it is just for a haircut! I promise I won’t be mad at you like last time…Ram…Ram…
Ram…You little sonofagun…You’d betta get your cotton-picking ass home lckety split my boy…or else I’ll be forced into coming over their to nepalKathmanbuddhaland and gitting you myself…you listening to me boy…
i remember 1 time i myself was in deep meditation after a night of drinking i woke up and went the toilet i pushed and pushed then feel into meditation for 1hour as i kept pushing this big 10 inch turd came flying out my asshole then i was enlightened and clensed at the same time mmm i feel better
Amazing ….hehehhehehehehehheehhehehehehehe
ram bomjam here he sits broken hearted thought he shit but only farted
I have discovered where the mind is located…..Have you ever heard somebody say “I have a lot on my mind”, what they really meant was they have a lot to think about and can’t listen to you at the moment. And a scientist will tell you that you think in your head (brain) and therefore a thinker believes that his mind is in his head. lol So then what does mind over matter mean?, if your brain is made of matter………..Dum, da, dum, dum, dum. lol
I think that this thread is fascinating, as it represents the fundamental views of society as a whole with respect to supernatural events. There are three basic points of view, speaking roughly of course, when it comes to such situations. One is purely scientific, and the limits of science are accepted to be the limits of the actual world. Another, the second view, is completely open, and there are no limits necessary, and science is irrelevant. The third is science-based, but allows that science is simply a theory, though a good one in that it is often explanatory. Therefore, science is used as a guide, but subscribers to the third view don’t believe unquestioningly that those phenomena that science can’t explain must not exist.
Some people get very upset at the idea that phenomena for which science has no explanation may exist. They call others insulting names, refusing to examine the possibilities critically. This is the worst kind of error for a true scientist. Such bias will not lead to understanding anything new, but simply support one’s current worldview – which, it appears, these people are trying to do at all costs. They appear to be deeply scared of any challenge to what they already accept as truth.
A real scientist, however, welcomes challenges, and is open to seeing how his/her theory works to explain new data, as compared with competing theories.
A good scientist does not approach the study of new data (in this case, the story about the boy doing something physiologically highly improbable) with fervent hopes that his/her theory will explain it best, or anger at other possible attempts to explain it. That’s the approach of someone who feels threatened.
Good scientists are always willing to revise their theories based on new data. And there is always new data coming in. Did anyone think that Newton’s laws would ever have to be revised? They explained the physical world nearly perfectly (or, arguably, perfectly, given the existence of complete vacuums such as space, and otherwise taking into account friction, etc.). But the discovery of quantum physics was essentially a realization that such laws did nothing to explain the rules of the physical world once you study it on a smaller scale. Studying particles of light, for example, Newton’s laws don’t explain how they move or how they work at all. They are both particles and waves at the same time – some physicists call them ‘wavicles’. Would Newton have frantically argued with quantum physicists, calling them names because they tried to compete with his views? I certainly hope not. Even if he had, he would have lost. The search for truth must go on.
Science is a wonderful tool. It is extremely powerful. But it cannot, by definition, explain the super-natural. It is not meant to do so. So if one approaches an apparently super-natural phenomenon, limiting oneself to scientific explanations is inherently futile.
There are things that happen that science cannot explain. Any good scientist admits this. Those who get angry and fight are not scientists, but merely converts to the religion of science. There is a vast difference.
A scientist thinks and challenges the current theory. The current theory must always be challenged, or else it has become dogma. The current theory is always changing over time. In a hundred years, some of what we consider common-sense scientific knowledge today will have been proven incorrect. Good scientists accept this. Converts to the religion of science merely want someone else to give them an explanation so they can get back to the rest of their lives without contemplating anything deeper than getting drunk next weekend or who they’d like to have sex with. They are scared of life, scared of death, and the religion of science is a crutch on which to stand. They are indistinguishable in quality from other blind religious devotees, who don’t question the official dogma of their religion.
Let’s keep our minds open, especially for data that aren’t easily explained by our theories. For a good scientist, this is often the most interesting kind of data. Insulting others does not lead to understanding. It merely shows that the offender feels threatened.
Science cannot explain God, or whether or not he/she/it exists. It was not made for this task. It can answer questions such as ‘how’ and ‘what’ and ‘when’, but it cannot answer the ultimate ‘why’. Converts to the religion of science often forget this. Let’s not lose our humility, but remember that we are but tiny beings in the midst of the grand and intricate beauty that is our universe.
Carey,
I like your comments, and I think you’re getting to some of the issues behind this. I’ve got a question for you.
In your claim that science can’t explain the supernatural, are you talking about semantics or underlying realities?
It seems to me that, by definition, what science can’t explain could be termed the supernatural. Conversely, what science can explain can be termed the natural. But given that science’s ability to explain things changes constantly, how can we identify a fixed referent for the terms “natural” and “supernatural?”
What is your basis for making a distinction between what science does not yet understand and what science is inherently incapable of ever understanding? It seems to me that this distinction would have to be made based on some kind of knowledge about that which–we claim–can never be understood. You see the problem.
As to your three types:
There certainly are extreme left-wing ideologues who misrepresent science as a source of static, dogmatic truth–and as a valid basis for rigid authority. What we’re talking about here is a Marxist hack of the sort that’s really quite rare in America, despite what some right-wing propaganda would have you believe. I don’t see any of that kind of comment here.
America, on the other hand, is full of millions of ideologues who misrepresent religion as a source of static, dogmatic truth that forms a valid foundation for rigid authority. In fact, this kind of view is so prevalent that some wouldn’t call it a “misrepresentation” at all. They actually claim that religion is a static source of knowledge and authority that has remained unchanged since the days of some legendary founder.
Even the most hard-boiled of skeptics belong to neither extreme. An ideologue at one extreme will say: I know it’s true without any evidence. Ideologues at the other extreme will say: I know it’s NOT true without any evidence. A skeptic will say: SHOW me the evidence. Most skeptics would be quite content with the level of evidence Jesus’s own disciples are said to have received of his resurrection: examine the body post-mortem, see it come back to life, and examine the wounds.
Ask a paleontologist whether a single cow skeleton in Jurassic rock strata would completely demolish his or her view of the world, then ask a religious ideologue whether ANY evidence could ever cause them to doubt their worldview. A true skeptic is committed to a dynamic world view, clings rigidly to no belief, and is open to any possibility. That’s what separates them from extremists.
The first too great opinions out of many other opinions. Science is an agreement of opinion shared between the universal mind. Thanks for taking the time to think about science.
I would like to start by asking a question. Is thinking the same thing as experiencing? and if so why? And how can they be related?
Ralph,
let me first respond to your question, the best I can. I believe that science has the potential to understand nearly everything, as long as the definition of science is expanded from ‘work done on chemicals/particles etc. by technicians in lab suits’ to ‘a philosophy of inquiry into the condition of existence based on the scientific method’. Traditional scientists can do a lot of this, though, without expanding the definition. Quantum Physics, for example, has led to the validation of spiritual/religious concepts such as bilocation (the possibility that one entity can be in two places at the same time) that were unimaginable in science just a few decades ago. I don’t dare predict what science will explain next, but I personally believe that some of the ancient spiritual/religious insights regarding invisible energy flows (such as those utilized in acupuncture, and those claimed to comprise the soul, etc.) will be testable relatively soon (and, indeed, some already have been tested).
Other aspects of human existence, such as the understanding of language, are far less understood. Linguistics (the science which takes as its focus of study human language) is relatively young/undeveloped (excepting certain ancient geniuses such as Panini), and the vast majority of the world’s languages are not even recorded and archived, let alone analyzed. Even English, the most well-studied language in the history of humankind, is far from being thoroughly understood. Linguists still can’t agree on the meaning of a word like ‘in’, for instance – there are literally several dozen articles and books written on exactly what this word means, all of them adding information or disagreeing with other linguists’ analyses or looking at it from a new direction.
So, on the one hand, science is an amazing tool, but on other ways, it is in its infancy.
With the expanded definition, however, I think we allow for personal experience of the human condition to be used as data. Some forms of Buddhism, for example, encourage careful scientific analysis of their benefits before wholeheartedly accepting the philosophy. This is, for me, the link between science and the spiritual, at least in my own life. I was fortunate enough to try such a meditation course, in which the teacher was adamant about the students not blindly believing in what he said, but examining the psychological/emotional changes that ensued in themselves as a direct result of practicing this type of meditation, and only continuing if they experienced effects that they considered beneficial. He would not allow the students to ‘believe’ in anything, but requested that we simply experience what the meditation technique had to offer. I would have been very skeptical about any other teaching, but I was able to open up to one like this. So, when I found that I was slower to anger, and I felt that my mind was sharper and more focused, I was able to accept that the meditation technique was beneficial without having to believe in anything. I consider this to be a scientific decision, using the expanded definition of science I mentioned above. If you accept that this is science, then you will probably agree with me that science has the potential to explain/understand much of the human condition, in addition to the physical universe in which we live.
However, there are probably questions that will always be beyond the bounds of science, ever-changing as they are. Why the universe exists is certainly among them. Saying that there was a Big Bang doesn’t answer this question; it merely explains what the origins of the universe were. Why it occurred is not a question most astronomers or cosmologists care to deal with, and I can’t imagine that scientifically testable hypotheses will ever be developed with respect to such a question. Even if one says that the Big Bang was a result of the Big Crunch (the ultimate contraction of the universe, which resulted in all matter being compressed into a tiny space, such that the Big Bang occurred), the next question is why that happened, etc. Where the universe originally came from, before any Big Bang or Big Crunch, is not something science will likely even attempt to answer.
Therefore, I don’t think that there is a fixed identity for terms such as ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’, given the promise of the expansion of science in the future. This is not a problem, however, given the attested historical changes in the semantics of lexical forms. For instance, the word ‘meat’ used to mean ‘any food’. ‘Silly’ used to be ‘happy, blessed’. Some of what is ‘natural’ now might be ‘supernatural’ in a few generations, and vice-versa. I also think that there are questions that science will never be able to approach, given the limitations of the scientific method.
Note that I appreciate the virtues of the scientific method deeply. In fact, it is not only essential in my profession, but I also use it to evaluate my spiritual disciplines (the meditation I mentioned earlier). But I allow for the possibility that science cannot explain everything, and I am open to intuition as another source of data. And any rational scientist must admit that the scientific method has limitations, as well.
I must disagree with your analysis of the prevalence of my first type of belief. In my opinion, people, and particularly people from wealthy countries, can tend to trust their folk beliefs in science almost as a religion. I’m specifically referring to some of the comments above that say something like ‘it’s not scientifically possible, and therefore it’s not possible.’ While I have to admit that I am very skeptical that someone could possibly live for that long without water and food, I don’t want to dismiss the possibility entirely before investigating further. Nobody thought that bilocation was within the realm of possibility until recently, and it has been proven to be real. The idea of one thing being in two places at one time just doesn’t make sense, but it is the way things work, at least when we look at really small things (read The Self-Aware Universe by Goswami if you’re interested in this, and see the movie What the Bleep Do We Know). Unfortunately, I find that people who rely on folk science (i.e. what they understand to be true in science) as a crutch are everywhere in my life.
Finally, I agree with your final comment about true skeptics. I would like to consider myself one, but it is really difficult to not cling rigidly to any belief. I find it fascinating that Buddhist texts describing enlightened people often focus on this aspect of their philosophy. They are claimed to adhere to no belief system, at least not rigidly, and be open to whatever life brings them. Maybe ‘enlightened’ simply means a good scientist?
As for Rogerwalker’s question, I would say that thinking is an experience, and therefore the two can be synonymous. I believe that having an unconscious experience is not possible – that’s not an experience. I believe that we create our experiences by filtering what is happening through our thoughts. Therefore, two people on the same train ride, sitting next to each other, can have completely different experiences. One is in a bad mood, and sees only the smog from the factories and the poverty. The other is in a good mood, and sees the sunset and the clouds. There’s an ancient Chinese saying ‘A thief walking on the road meets the Buddha. He sees only the Buddha’s pockets.’ To me, this is talking about how our limits are what we think- all we are is what we can see.
However, I also have studied what are called ‘mirror neurons’. These are neurons that, when we see someone do something, mirror the action. For example, when we see a Jackie Chan Kung-fu movie, our mirror neurons are rapidly firing away, and we’re imagining that we’re doing those motions ourselves. That’s why many people feel tired, or alternatively, charged, after seeing a movie like that. In that case, thinking (if you call that thinking, which is arguable) is less real than actually doing/experiencing. So I guess it depends on what you mean by thinking, and if you include unconscious mental processes.
Your conception of Buddhist adepts as scientific skeptics and Buddhist meditation as a kind of science experiment strikes me as a rather recent innovation. Out of curiosity, what Buddhist texts and forms of Buddhism are you talking about?
Movies like “What the Fuck Do We Know?” grow out of a certain kind of folk religion that incorporates science into an agenda: 1. Science discovers something hitherto unknown or considered impossible, 2. The general remark is made that things that we thought were impossible are actually possible, 3. Therefore things we thought were impossible (the example is almost always a religious or philosophical doctrine that appeals to people for other reasons) might be true, according to science. There’s no logical flaw in the reasoning process, but it’s usually presented in a way that’s very misleading–to suggest scientific legitimacy for some religious or ideological claim on the very basis of the fact that it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge
I think your point about bilocation and Ram Bomjon surviving six months without food or water is an argument of the same kind: 1. We used to think bilocation was impossible, 2. Now we know it actually happens, 3. Now we think going six months without food or water is impossible, 4. But it could actually happen…
Yes, weird things happen in quantum mechanics, and in relativity too. But they almost all happen on the scale of the very large or very small. Sure, anything’s possible, but do you actually have a scientific theory about how Ram has survived six months without eating or drinking?
There is only one scientific theory I can come up with for how this boy has survived six months without food and water: it’s a fraud. It’s by far the most plausible theory, and it’s reinforced by the fact that his handlers have not let doctors or scientists examine him. Then there’s “what the fuck do we know?”
“What the fuck do we know?” Is not a scientific theory. It’s an admission of a lack of knowledge. If you want to expand the bounds of science so that they embrace speculation made on the basis of what we DON’T know, I frankly don’t see how you can do it without losing a lot of rigor in the process.
WHO CARES HAVNT YOU ALL GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO RATHER THAN TALK BULLSHIT ABOUT A BOY SITTING UNDER A TREE GO BACK AND SIT ON YOUR FAT ARSES AND WATCH YOUR DAY TIME SOAP,LET THE BOY MEDITATE LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!
Ralph,
Thanks for your honest and critical viewpoint. I suspected that I might lose a pure/traditional scientific skeptic with that last post, and so I’m glad to have a chance to address your concerns.
For starters, I’m talking about the Pali Suttas, the canonical texts associated with Theravada Buddhism, though I don’t believe that they necessarily represent the actual words of the Buddha, as Theravada adherents generally do. I have studied the sutras (discourses) primarily, though only in translation. My experience with Buddhist meditation is with the Vipassana technique, as taught by S.N. Goenka.
You are entirely correct about the logic underlying my mentions of quantum mechanics. I use examples like these to remind myself and others that, no matter how much I/we believe that science has closed the case on a particular matter, it will always be open to question.
I do not have a theory of how the boy could have possibly survived for six months without food or water, as I do not think that it’s likely that such a thing could happen. I doubt it strongly, but my point is that I don’t want to say that it’s impossible. Highly unlikely, yes, but not impossible. It would require a ground-breaking explanation to make me believe it, but I am open to the possibility of some explanation like that existing. Until someone presents me with such an explanation, I will simply say that I don’t believe it, but that I try to retain an open mind. I don’t think that I should be put in the position of having to understand the scientific theories behind everything I believe; I believe that the TV isn’t actually a group of little 2-dimensional people, but I have little or no idea of how it actually works.
When I claimed to be using the scientific method, to the greatest extent possible, to examine the potential value of the meditation technique I learned, I was referring to the following methodology:
First, I practiced the method, and observed various changes in my mental/emotional being. These included becoming slower to anger, being able to focus more intently, and so on. Some of these changes were purely qualitative, such as being slower to anger, and others were also partially quantitative, and more easily testable, such as the improved ability to focus. To test this, I simply focused my mind on one thing, starting as I started my stopwatch, and when I realized that my mind wandered, I stopped the watch. Because I had been interested in this possibility, I timed myself before starting the meditation course, during the course, and after the course, and found that the time I could stay focused increased rather dramatically.
Second, I hypothesized that these changes were due to the practice of meditation. There were few other potentially reasonable hypotheses, but some did exist, such as the fact that I was isolated from my usual social environment, eating somewhat different food that I typically eat, etc.
Third, I predicted that, as I meditated more and became more adept at meditation, I would see these facets strengthened, as well as seeing other similar changes occur. I also predicted that, even after I returned home and resumed my typical habits of food and friends, my ability to focus would not lessen significantly (testing several competing hypotheses as well).
Fourth, after several weeks at home, and continuing the meditation practice for one to two hours a day, I noticed other changes in the way I dealt with emotions such as frustration, that were qualitatively similar to the initial changes I had noticed. Additionally, the time that I could focus on one thing actually increased slightly (mean time over 5 trials within a one-hour period; same as my tests before, during, and immediately after the meditation course).
To me, this is nothing less than science, albeit science practiced on a truly sticky area in which to practice. It is certainly less rigorous than much hard science, but no less so, I believe than most linguistics, or certainly most social sciences. The primary problem as I see it is that the data source is the scientist himself, which is an unfortunate situation, but not an impossible one, I believe. Another problem is that the data are not easily replicable, as they are qualitative, for the most part. But I trust my determinations, and that I make them only with my search for the truth in mind, and this science is intended to convince only myself; frankly, I am not concerned with whether others come to the same conclusions as I did or not. However, I must admit that the idea of discussing my beliefs and having to defend them is intriguing to me; hence these long posts.
Finally, I just wanted to respond to Davo’s comments. I assume that they express the limits of your intellectual ability, and I have no problem with that, but I fear that they also express the limits of your ability to be kind to others and accept people who are different from you, and that’s a real shame. I am not biased against anyone for having a low (or high) IQ, but people who are stingy, mean, and belittling, I feel sorry for.
Kudos to the moderator for removing Davo’s attack. I agree that it was inappropriate, intolerant, and simply mean.
Carey,
You have a lot of interesting ideas. You think that someone can accept God based on science? That’s not real acceptance. It’s just the play world.
Open your heart to the truth, and see the difference between lust and love.
Heart, not just mind.
Victor
Thanks for answering me honestly, Carey, and accepting a different point of view.
I notice you’re adding a lot of adjectives to the word science–”pure, traditional, hard,” etc., in what looks like an attempt to broaden the definition of science to embrace what you’re doing. You seem to want to call what you’re doing “science.” Why?
A lot of work on Pali texts has tended to play up aspects of the texts that could be depicted as rationalist psychology, and play down religious aspects of the texts. Many people will tell potential Western converts that Buddhism is not a religion at all, but merely a “system of inquiry into the ultimate nature of reality” (i.e. science in so many words). Are you at all skeptical of these claims?
I have some doubts about your account of meditation as an experiment on yourself.
You imply that you started off the whole process without first having a fairly well-established set of ideas about what would happen as a result.
It seems more likely that you entered your course of meditation with certain expectations about what results you would acheive, then tailored your activities to the pre-existing goal of gaining those results. There’s a not-at-all subtle distinction between this kind of activity and even the softest of sciences.
I would guess that when you were trained in meditation, your teacher told you not only what to do but what results to expect. If you didn’t get the right kind of result, you were told to meditate again until you achieved it. That is to say, perform the experiment again and again until the results match the anticipated outcome. You see the problem, I hope, from a scientific point of view.
I practice something called Tantra and from that have learned what enlightenment is. We are all enlightenened every day when we experience a moment. Every experience is in the moment. A moment can be infinately long. And there could never be one moment the same as another. The moment is made of energy. If your not in the moment your thinking. The moment is made of energy and if your thinking you are made of that which is the opposite of energy, some call it nagative energy or unbalance, I call it the void.
Some budhists will talk about being in two places in the same time. Budhists are refering to a sliver of time or what I call the moment. Budhists are traveling from one place to another without thinking and therefroe experience one moment. So therefore a budhist is in two places that are in the same moment. Every moment feels the same. A moment only feels different if you are thinking and are not in the moment. If you are truly listening (not thinking)to someone you are sharing the moment with them. Every experience that every human has is in the moment. And therefore by listening to someone (being in the moment)you are giving them knowledge from everybodies experiences. Thus my grandmother talks to herself because “The older you get the more you have to thinking about” and therefore she is an energy vampire trying to suck moments away from other people. So the more time you spend thinking the more moments you will need to use and the faster you will age. I am sure that everyone will agree, experieecning and thinking are two different things although they are related to one another. Thinking is to experiencing like matter is to mind, conscious to subconscious, night to day, thinking is to feeling. There is a feeling attached to every thought you have. A thought feels real…..Life is the balance between thinking and experiencing. Have you ever noticed that when you feel good time flies? HAve you ever noticed that when you are bored, sitting around thinking time takes forever? Time travel is being in the moment and aging comes from thinking. Thus obeis people eat to feel good because they have stress caused from thinking too much lol. If experiencing feels good, then thinking feels bad. Are you thinking while you are sleeping?I believe we are. And I also believe we are aware of our dreams. HAve you ever had a scary dream that you woke up from to stop yourself from dying? Have you ever had a wet dream? Thinking feels real. Dreaming feels real. If there is a balance between thinking and experiencing during the day then theere has to be a balance at night….Now we know that you loose energy from physically experiencing the moment at night. And we get energy from dreaming. WE also know that we lose energy from thinking in the day (obeis example) and we don’t loose any energy from being in the moment (Ram Bojon). And if night is the opposite to day. Then at night we get energy from thinking (dreaming), and we loose energy from experiencing. Thus thinking is day dreaming. And the deffinition of subconscious and conscious needs to be changed because you are aware of your dreams at night. The deffintion consciousness and subconscious should be opposite in the day as it is a night. The deffintion should be You are subconscious if you are thinking and conscious if you are experiencing or subconscious is experiencing and conscious is thinking. Because you are experiencing what you are thinking while you are sleeping. Does anyone disagree?
This is my theory of immortality. Who wants to learn how to be in the moment?
Rogerwalker,
there is so much thinking behind your ideas that I wonder if you are in a self-defeating cycle. Thinking about not thinking, etc.
Have you ever been sewn back into wholeness from a dispersed tangle of thoughts and intentions?
Have you ever been uncontainable by this universe?
Have you given yourself up to the one that shatters human intelligences like fragile glass?
Have you ever died, laughing and open like a flower?
Being in the moment is wonderful. If you are empty, The Friend will fill you with divinity. I’m talking about what Jesus had, what Buddha experienced. If your own personality and thoughts fill your vessel like a toxic soup, then that’s your choice. But to be empty…it’s so marvelous…. I cannot explain. Those who have experienced it, even once, for even one instant, know. But some hide their heads in the sand like scared birds, quaking in fear at the presence that fills existence once we stop imposing our own made-up ideas everywhere. Yes, I certainly agree with you that it’s good to be empty.
Victor
I agree with imposing my thoughts being a wrong thing to do. But these are people who I can’t reach by listening. I have given reasons for them to want to learn how to stop thinking and it might not help. And I am not against thinking, I am for listening. Because what is the point of talking if the other person is thinking about saying something and therefore won’t remember what you said. I do most of my thinking when I am sleeping. lol
again, ram bomjon is making no claims, the excitement is arising from your mind. This mind is contaminated by self grasping which cannot see clearly, because it is thinking of itself.
Do you think of your mind? What does it look like? You said exitement was arising from my mind, therefore isinuating that the mind is a feeling. Therefore the mind is the feeling and the matter is the thought. Is it possible to think of a feeling?
“Thinking feels real
Dreaming feels real”-me
“Are you thinking while your sleeping?
Thinking is daydreaming”-me
“IF experiencing is a thought
And thought is a memory
Then experiencing is a memory”-me
Do you believe that an experience is a thought because you can remember experiences by thinking and therefore the moment is a memory? Does the future already exist? Are the past and the moment the same thing? Only the moment exists. And if your not in the moment your thinking.
Thinking is the opposite of experiencing but is related through memory. They are not the same thing. A feeling is attached to every thought or memory (thus you experience the feeling). Therefore if experiencing the moment one is experiencing a feeling. But the feeling is not the same thing as the thought. Feeling is the experience. Babies don’t know how to think and they still exist. That is also why a baby is listening to everything “babies are like sponges they absorb everything”. If you take away the thought the feeling still exists. If your not thinking then you are experiencing. And in order to be listening one can not be thinking, thereofre listening is experiencing. And since experiencing is a feeling then listening is also a feeling.
Is listening a thought?
Rogerwalker, you’ve been sold a load of goods. That’s not Tantra, it’s New Age B.S.
knowledge is common sense….I learned that by being in the moment. ANd tantra is one way to learn how to be in the moment. In order to have multiple orgasms without ejaculating one must learn how to be in the moment. Atleast I am not old age B.S. lol. I am glad that I have the freedom to seek knowledge and am not ristricted by old beliefs. Maybe it is just a phase. I am guessing that you are someone who can’t change your beliefs. The bible hasn’t ever been changed and therefore it must be right. You won’t ever change and therefore you are right and I am wrong. ANd the world would be a perfect place if everyone was like you. Your not normal unless you are like me……Don’t compare yourself to me, because I am different.
Gee, all I said was that you’ve got no clue about the difference between Tantra and New Age B.S. From this you conclude I’m a Biblical literalist who can’t change his beliefs, etc.
Did your newfound powers of “being in the moment” (um, where else would you be?) reveal all this to you? Or did you get it from “thinking?”
Common sense is not knowledge. You gain knowledge by overcoming common sense. The earth doesn’t move–that’s common sense; it took human beings thousands of years of careful astronomical observation to overcome that common sense and gain knowledge. But a million years of your silly New Ageism parading around claiming to be Tantra would never do it.
rogerwalker,
mind itself is imagined, there is no mind, as you point out, it is a concept empty of existence, as is everything else.
because sentient beings have senses and on contact feelings, is no proof of reality which also is non-existent along with buddha, samsara and nirvana and all other concepts and phenomena.
like this, george bush etc are just a passing result of passing causes as am.
Someone had to know the earth was moving in order to try and prove it. And do you already know what you are thinking? Are thinking and experiencing the same thing?
You said,”Thats not tantra , that is new age B.S” insinuating that Tantra has nothing to do with being in the moment. You said that they were different, but had no reason, or proof to prove me wrong…..? And then I proved to you why I believed they had to be in the same category. My family is strictly religious Catholics so I am aware of their perspective on Tantra.
Sorry, I forgot to ask you if you knew anything about Tantra. And you forgot to research it before you insulted my beliefs. Do you know how to do Tantra? Because in order to know everything about it you must know how to do it. So therefore I guess you will never know wether it is the same or other than New age B.S
By stating that the “mind being imagined” you are refering to Mind as being a memory. If you are imagining something are you thinking? And in reality you don’t know what it is but are making a statement about it being imaginary. In conclusion the mind does have to do with your thoughts. And since a thought is a memory. And a memory comes form experiencing. Then we can conclude that the mind is used when remembering an experience. But we know that the mind is not an imagination. And therefore the only possible answer left is that we are the mind experiencing the moment. The only agument against my own is “what if you are thinking about something that hasn’t happened yet and therefore it could not be a memory?” And my answer is “you are experiencing that which you do not know and have not experienced yet and are probably wasting your time.
If experiencing is a thought
And a thought is a memory
Then experiencing is a memory
If one believes that thinking and experiencing are the same thing, and if one believes that experiencing is a memory then one must believe that the past, and the moment are the same thing. lol And we all know that they are not.
I believe otherwise because thinking feels real. Experiencing is a feeling. And experiencing and thinking are not the same thing. Someone who is hypnotised can remember every experience because lol……….he is in a relaxed state of mind, and therefore could not be thinking…he is using his subconscious therefore could not be thinking…because if you are conscious you are aware of your thoughts and actions and if you are subconscious you are unaware of your thoughts or actions. Do you notice how one must be in a relaxed state of mind and using their subconscious in order to remember all experiences. Could it be that every experience is in the moment. And if your thinking your not in the moment. Well that would mean that experiencing during the daytime is subconscious. And if one has a lot on their minds they are insinuating that they have a lot to think about.
So the mind is subconscious. And the matter is consciousness. Like experiencing is to thinking. They could not exist without their opposite. And in order to remember an experience one must be able to have a thought. But thinking and experiencing are not the same thing.
Let me make the new deffintions clear for everyone:
Thought, consciousness, conscious, matter, thinking, free will(should be will only), decisions, reasoning, dwelling, stress, unbalance, negative, time, age, past, future, are all the same if done during the day.
Feeling,Subconscious, moment, memory, listening, experiencing, Free (without the will),unconcious, collective unconscious, energy, positive, telepathy, soul, balance, thoughtlessness, timelessness, imortality, instincts, . If done during the day.
The deffintions change to being the opposite at night time as they are in the daytime. Thus how does one get energy from sleeping without eating or drinking anything?
Gee, you forgot to ask whether I knew anything about Tantra. How about that? Guess your “in the moment” powers have failed you. But somehow you know I haven’t researched it. Are your powers failing again?
OK, without looking it up, explain to me what’s distinctive about Tantra’s understanding of prajna and upaya, and its relationship to Tantric ritual?
What you’re spouting is not Tantra, but New Age disguised as Tantra. You’re either a charlatan, or you’ve been deceived by one.
first recognition:
i am mentally ill because Im suffering from delusions and other mental diseases.
the mind stinks, although it does not exist, in our ignorance we think it does, this results in imagined phenomena being given solid existence, the result is contaminated appearance made up by our own imagination.
All supported by I, me, mine, myself, the self grasping.
Seeing this self as most important and all phenomena secondarily out there.
This is not seeing clearly, we believe the illusion that we create.
A state of madness.
The first recognition is about ourself, we should feel compassion for ourself and all other selves,
Tantra is being in a state of freedom from this stinking mind.
What stinking mind? Who is free from it?
Hello all,
Do you have any update on Ram condition, scientific investigation results? Now he should have more than 7 months fasting.
Regards
mario
Look for updates looking for Palden Dorje, Ram Bamjan or Buddha Gyani. There are newer notes and researches under these
If Sy wants to know he has to experience it. How can I tell you about something you haven’t experienced.
Here’s how:
Today, I saw an alien from outer space. It had red eyes and descended to earth in a blue spacecraft that smelled of cabbage.
See, you hadn’t experienced that alien, but I told you all about it, right?
It’s the sort of thing people do every day – describing things to other people that those people have never experienced.
We use language to do it. Let me repeat that: Lang-U-age. Got it?
BUZZZ!
Sorry Rogerwalker, but thanks for playing. “If you want to know it, you’ve got to experience it for yourself” is New Age B.S., not Tantra.
Tantra is a religion, with doctrines and rituals you clearly know nothing about.
tantra is mahamudra, the union of bliss and emptiness not the doctrines and rituals that might if practised with effortless effort assist one.
Mahamudra is non-mind
paradox: negate the non-existent?
mario, i havn’t been able to find any updates on the childs condition either.