--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:41 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > I would say that both the Patanjali tradition says that and the > > > Buddhist traditions say that Awakened Mind can transform > > > environments, indeed whole world systems. > > > > What would you say, Vaj, to the suggestion (not original > > with me) that ALL of the myths of the enlightened being > > able to positively transform the environment were invented > > to sucker people into paying for their lives so that they > > didn't have to work? > > > > I mean, there are no *testable* benefits to others of being > > enlightened. The only evidence we have to the contrary is > > dogma created by people who had a vested interest in people > > believing that the enlightenment of the monks they were > > supposed to support through their donations would somehow > > benefit them, the donors. > > > > Although I admit the possibility that the enlightened have > > a value for others (even though I have seen zero evidence > > of it), I can also see some validity to this suggestion. > > In a very real sense, it's like someone saying, "You should > > pay for me to pursue my studies to become a master fly > > fisherman, because as we all know the superradiance > > pouring off of a master fly fisherman transforms the > > environment and benefits all sentient beings." :-) > > I'm very busy the next couple of days, so it might take me a > while to look into it. but I believe there is actual evidence > out there.
Cool. But I'm wondering, based on the paragraph below, whether you misunderstood what I was asking about and interested in. > One involves what's come to be called "mirror neurons", which > are a way we each keep track internally within ourselves of > how others around us are, how their minds are. The other was > research on advanced meditators who then were put thru a > series of tests where their worldview was challenged by an > expert in arguing. In the expert meditators who had conquered > a lot of their negative emotions, it just rolled off them; > they were unaffected. Both sound fascinating, but you seem to have missed my point. The original thread was about the ME, and whether the enlightened (or even butt-bouncers) can positively affect their environments. Both of the studies you mention above are about benefits for the person claiming enlightenment or some kind of spiritual advancement, not for anyone around them. > And there are other, more anecdotal examples of an entire > country that learned to meditate and embrace awakening as > part of their lives. Not only did strife and war disappear, > but the healthcare system became an integrated model between > allopathic medicine, and Tibetan medicine (Ayurvedic and > Chinese medicine). My suspicion is that these "anecdotes" cannot be found to have any basis in real history. :-) > I don't know that change is necessarily non-physical, but > it is relational. People see other people who seem happy, > and want to know why. As Curtis has pointed out, that is just a facet of being human, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with either enlightenment or "spiritual progress." If you know of any studies that can prove that someone claiming enlightenment had a verifiable Woo Woo affect *on others*, I'd be interested in seeing it. So far, all I've ever seen was "anecdotal" stuff presented by those who had a vested interest in people believing it so that they'd contribute to their lineage or cause. I'm not saying that the enlightened have NO effect on their environment, merely that I don't think there is a shred of proof that they do. It's a matter of belief.
