Effects of meditative trance

[Anders]

Remember that the trance we have here is for the specific purpose of perceiving the spirit world, and not notice the world around us as much.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Remember that the trance we have here is for the specific purpose of perceiving the spirit world, and not notice the world around us as much.

The simplest method would be to treat it as a temporary case of Single-Minded.

Bill Stoddard

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Edges

(...) I could write GURPS: Meditation, if I had the time, in which various meditations would be shown to provide different modifiers.

Hm. In other thread, months ago, you once claimed that the Bhagavad Gita was supporting "polytheism". In that moment, I couldn't be able to manage my time for answering to you regarding this. The Gita isn't about "polytheism", and "the" Krishna that speaks to Arjuna isn't a "god between many others", but the Supreme Self or Paramātmā. I had the quotes at hand but no time for writing the post.

I'm pointing at this because, for understanding meditation, or at least eastern meditation, is needed to have a real grasp of eastern metaphysics. Achieving a real understanding about that is all but easy . . . "Polytheism" isn't in most cases but an exoteric attitude, which was described as "misleading" by some orthodox Hindu Scriptures and teachers.

Originally Posted by Edges

(...) One of the most common misconceptions about meditation is that it is like sleep in which there is a decreased level of awareness during the state. I doubt, for instance, that Ramana Maharishi "didn't notice" stones thrown at him while he was meditation so much as he didn't care.

I agree with you saying that there are lots of misconceptions about meditation and spirituality.

OTOH, being hit by stones thrown at you hurts. And Ramana Maharshi wasn't a fakir. You can doubt about it, sure. But then you can behold similar things by yourself -if you're lucky. Of course that Ramana Maharshi's meditation had nothing to do with anything like sleep, rather at the contrary, true meditation is intense lucidity.

To be unaware of the body by trascending it -it's only an upadhi, an objectivation of the infinity, a superposition to the Self- is a part of the Vedanta Advaita teachings and methods ("The body isn't the Self").

To be aware of the Prâjna state (*) conveys, in certain steps of the spiritual development, to not be able to be aware of the state of Vaishwânara -the usual state of the human mind, linked to the wordly perception. Again, this has nothing to do with sleep . . .

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Remember that the trance we have here is for the specific purpose of perceiving the spirit world, and not notice the world around us as much.

In Hindu terms, that "spirit world" is called Taijasa, the physic or subtle domain, the intermediary step or "world" between the aforementioned Vaishwânara and Prâjna.

I guess you need to stablish how deep and exclusive is the meditation of that shaman. They usually don't surpass the domain of Taijasa, which is, between many other things, the dwelling place of the "spirits" they deals with.

The subtle domain sometimes can be partially perceived as intermingled with the corporeal world. However, if your shaman is really deep in a state akin to Taijasa, his perception of the worldly domain well can be zero. I've seen this often, although I acknowledge that such states are extraordinary without the use of drugs nor any other known technique.


(*) "The divine world", for saying it so, "where" all individual and existential conditions and limitations have been abolished.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

I'm pointing at this because, for understanding meditation, or at least eastern meditation, is needed to have a real grasp of eastern metaphysics. Achieving a real understanding about that is all but easy . . . "Polytheism" isn't in most cases but an exoteric attitude, which was described as "misleading" by some orthodox Hindu Scriptures and teachers.

I'm going to comment on this from the "tech" perspective that informed my treatment in LTC1. I take meditation and similar processes as techniques or even technologies for altering consciousness by adjusting the neural state of the human organism. The practices for doing so are often associated with spiritual theories, but in just the same way, the use of herbal medications is often associated with humoral and similar theories (Galenic, ayurvedic, and traditional Chinese medicine are example); such theories may provide a convenient empirical classification of effects, but they have no relation to the actual causes.

Belief in the theories may offer some benefit in itself through the placebo mechanism. But the herbs or the trance induction methods work regardless of whether you believe in the mystical theory, through physiological mechanisms.

Now, in a game world, you might want it to be otherwise. And that's fine. But the resource for that would be Thaumatology, I think.

Bill Stoddard

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm going to comment on this from the "tech" perspective that informed my treatment in LTC1. (...)

Well, you know, we have divergent views here. Doesn't matter. My reply comes from actually working in that field for many years, and it's in conformity with the orthodox Hindu teachings and with others that are unavoidably related. Anyway, right now I'm not able to discuss these things in more depth.

Too much time, too much energy, and usually the stance of people in these matters is very difficult or near impossible to be modified. They have grown within a very specific world-view and it's not easy -for saying the least- to go out of it for seeing the things without its inherent glasses. Trying to do that literally changes the life of a person in radical ways, and often it's a painful process, too. Additionally, the modern day world doesn't provides many examples of the points I was speaking about. I guess that the thing boils down to the fact of that just providing information, writing reasonings, quoting texts, and claiming actual experience isn't enough.

Anyway, posting a few comments on these subjects can be useful or interesting for role playing games involving at least some fantasy elements. So I let drop around here some of these things occasionally.

[Anders]

I think I'll go with this:

There are three ways to reach a trance state: 1) meditation, 2) fasting and sleep deprivation, and 3) hallucinogenic.

1) Meditative trance state requires a roll against Meditation-4 (although I may devise a technique to let you buy that off). The trance is comparatively shallow - -4 penalty to notice irrelevant stimuli, +2 to notice relevant stimuli. Roll vs. Will to break the trance when desired.

2) Fasting and sleep deprivation. Powerful, easy, but very dangerous. Eat nothing, drink nothing, don't sleep until you reach 0 FP. At that point a trance occurs - basically you are unconscious - for 2dx6 hours. Then you go to -1xFP and fall into a Coma!

3) Hallucinogens. Chew on Dreamroot (fictive drug for the setting). After about 10 minutes, you enter a Hallucinating state in which you remain for 1d hours. Lose 1d FP afterwards. Very good for Information spells - gives +2 to effective skill.

[Edges]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Hm. In other thread, months ago, you once claimed that the Bhagavad Gita was supporting "polytheism". In that moment, I couldn't be able to manage my time for answering to you regarding this. The Gita isn't about "polytheism", and "the" Krishna that speaks to Arjuna isn't a "god between many others", but the Supreme Self or Paramātmā. I had the quotes at hand but no time for writing the post.

You must have me confused with someone else. Or you have completely misinterpreted something I've written. I don't recall ever commenting on "polytheism" on the internet. And I'm certain I have never referred to the Gita as being "about 'polytheism'."

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

I think I'll go with this:

There are three ways to reach a trance state: 1) meditation, 2) fasting and sleep deprivation, and 3) hallucinogenic.

1) Meditative trance state requires a roll against Meditation-4 (although I may devise a technique to let you buy that off). The trance is comparatively shallow - -4 penalty to notice irrelevant stimuli, +2 to notice relevant stimuli. Roll vs. Will to break the trance when desired.

2) Fasting and sleep deprivation. Powerful, easy, but very dangerous. Eat nothing, drink nothing, don't sleep until you reach 0 FP. At that point a trance occurs - basically you are unconscious - for 2dx6 hours. Then you go to -1xFP and fall into a Coma!

3) Hallucinogens. Chew on Dreamroot (fictive drug for the setting). After about 10 minutes, you enter a Hallucinating state in which you remain for 1d hours. Lose 1d FP afterwards. Very good for Information spells - gives +2 to effective skill.

Looks gameable.

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Well, you know, we have divergent views here.[snip]

You and Bill may have divergent views. But it looks like you're talking about different things. You said one needs to have a good grasp of metaphysics to fully understand meditation. He said you don't need to believe in a theory to benefit from meditation. Both are true.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Edges

He said you don't need to believe in a theory to benefit from meditation.

No, I'm also saying that the religious, theological, spiritual, and metaphysical theories of meditation contribute effectively zero to our actual understanding of it. Meditation is a physical process taking place in a physical information processing system. We will understand it fully when we grasp the physical causality. Anything other than that is like Molière's doctor saying that opium makes you sleep because of its dormitive virtues.

But subsidiary to that, (a) I believe there is an etic view of meditation as well as the various emic views, (b) I believe the etic view can have independent validity, and (c) I believe that a general rpg treatment must be etic.

Bill Stoddard

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Edges

You must have me confused with someone else. Or you have completely misinterpreted something I've written. I don't recall ever commenting on "polytheism" on the internet. And I'm certain I have never referred to the Gita as being "about 'polytheism'."

Right! I had the feeling of that you claimed such thing in this post yours, a post that was written when I was overloaded of work. But, after checking it again, I'm very glad of being wrong about that you were saying. Maybe I didn't answer at the time because I realized that it wasn't needed -that is to say, nothing to add for my part. Or as you're saying, maybe some other claimed that the Gita supported "polytheism" -BTW I don't have a prejudice against it, don't get me wrong, it is an useful approach in many fields and to some degree, but not for Mokhsa. I want to add a small disclaimer, too: many people thinks that, if one argues anything against "polytheism", it's because the one arguing is a Christian of whatever denomination, which in my case isn't true.

Knowing that you weren't claiming that saves me a bit of additional work. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Edges

You and Bill may have divergent views. But it looks like you're talking about different things. You said one needs to have a good grasp of metaphysics to fully understand meditation. He said you don't need to believe in a theory to benefit from meditation. Both are true.

He's talking about biology, psychology, sociology and materialism; I wasn't. We were speaking briefly about the same thing but from incompatible angles. One of the problems with the modern scientist approach is that this science is, in practice, very difficult to separate from its totalist goals. A science that is empirical and based in the perception of the senses, by definition can't gather a knowledge that is beyond the physical ambit. Honestly, such science can't claim much about orders of reality that aren't accessible through the body. Totalism here means the pretension of explaining all through the modern scientific method, which unavoidably means that all that can't be studied and positively checked by it is unreal, false and delusional. It results in reductionism. Modern science should be open-ended, but when one is focused in the sensorial world the mind is usually lost in its specific complexities. A material -or physical- science isn't but a partial science and can't define reality. BTW, this totalist tendency own of the point of view of the modern sciences is in part responsible of the intolerance of its representantives regarding any other form of knowledge. And well, the immense quantity of false spiritual teachings that are increasingly abundant, paranormal frauds, UFO beliefs and such things certainly doesn't help here, because all these things seem to give the reason to the scientist point of view, as if it were a safeguard for keeping our mental sanity while we are menaced by tons of harmful -and foolish- lies. The utterly decadent situation of the Christianity (along with other religions, but specially this, with its various denominations) doesn't help, neither: it's so wrong and inefficient that it actually pushes people towards the scientist beliefs.

Speaking of your assertion about that isn't needed to believe in a doctrine -because these things aren't theories at least in the modern and popular sense of the term- for drawing a benefit from its associated practices, it is fair in some cases. But not completely.

Usually there are diverse metaphysical points about which many aspirants to Enlightenment have no empirical evidence at the beginning, but only partial insights. -Please note that metaphysical issues aren't at the same level than "religious dogmata", by definition only and exclusively "approachable" through faith-. For actually develop these partial insights into full spiritual knowledge, jñana or gnosis, many times is needed some type of faith: faith in the veracity and autenticity of one's spiritual tradition, in the own master, and in the doctrine. Without this initial faith and belief, most aspirants would have turned to some other thing during the difficult steps of the path. Faith kept them in the track long enough for allowing them the attainment of empirical experience (but this would be an empirism unlinked from sensorial or bodily perception).

In reality this sort of faith that is often asked, isn't very different of the faith required today to an student of physics or of any other science (and actually I'm speaking about sacred science): he must rely in the truthfulness of many discoveries and theories already made by others in the past; he must rely in the mass media; he hasn't real experience about the sub-atomic particles; he doesn't know for sure if Albert Einstein was a reliable mind . . . The student assumes that all is mostly right and then proceeds into studying, eventually reaching a point in which he is enough confident about the matters. And anyway he's going to die of old age without being able to verify all these things by himself.

Anyway true faith comes from an inner conviction derived from some empirical but not complete experience, or caused by the recollection and reminiscence in the Platonic sense (anamnesis). So, if there's enough recollection, faith can be entirely pointless to you because the pointed truths are more or less obvious to you in a natural way. I acknowledge that this is increasingly rare . . . Having "blind faith", OTOH, the "faith" more usually associated with religion -and not with doctrines of knowledge-, well can be a disqualification in these ambits. For instance, I had to destroy a specific faith that a person had during most of his lifetime because it was conveying a set of beliefs utterly uncompatible with his aspirations, and this isn't more than a specific case of helping to destroy ignorance (specially in the sense of avidya). Although in reality, no one can make such things for others entirely: it's needed that you are able to understand by yourself at the end; in absence of this requirement, all is pointless.

Also, this is plenty of nuances. The unruly Srî Nisargadatta Maharaj was asked about how he attained Enlightenment. He answered: "My master told me the truth in few words. I believed it intensely for three years and that's all". That is far of being typical, but with enough recollection and concentration it can happen -with no method or technique.

Paradoxically, most of this isn't about belief, but about disbelieving, which is often hinted with the Neti, neti expression ("not this, not this"). One needs to be skeptical not only about social conventions, memes . . . but about the entire existence and the universe for unveiling that which is beyond the ordinary appearances -in other words, removing upadhis and abandoning profane, worldly beliefs.

Because there are two kinds of skepticism: the one that can lead to transcendent knowledge, and the other, much more common, that leads to nihilism.

For finishing with the faith theme, I want to put here one of the patterns for the Advaita Vedanta "practice". Note that this has little to do with the guidelines presented in "Technicians of the Sacred", which are suited for a wide variety of practices and types of traditions (the ones of the Shamanistic kind are mixed in that page with collective rituals, with religious Mysticism of the western kind, and with the Gnostic/Jñanic type of the eastern kind -there are a lot of different things in a small page!), both exoterical (public) and esoterical (concerning only to aspirants):

The path of knowledge only can be traversed by a person with the capability of discerning between the real and the unreal, unattached from the worldly things, wishing to attain release and gifted with calm, self-control, strenght, concentration and faith. Vedanta practice consists in the indagation of the Real (vichara), which unfolds by Itself in four succesive phases:

a) To hear the doctrine from the lips of an Awakened master (here a supernatural element plays a key role, too), installed in the consciousness of Brahman. The fruit of this hearing is the intelectual understanding of the teachings.

b) To reflect about the already heard until the attainment of a rational conviction of its truth.

c) To meditate about it continuosly until that the theoretical and rational conviction is converted in live experience, for then reaching to

d) know intuitively -that is, through the Intellect or Buddhi, nor through the mere faculty of the reason-, for seeing directly that the only true reality is Brahman.

As you can see, faith as such isn't required in the same sense than in the religious one, but isn't discarded.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, I'm also saying that the religious, theological, spiritual, and metaphysical theories of meditation contribute effectively zero to our actual understanding of it. Meditation is a physical process taking place in a physical information processing system. We will understand it fully when we grasp the physical causality. Anything other than that is like Molière's doctor saying that opium makes you sleep because of its dormitive virtues.

But subsidiary to that, (a) I believe there is an etic view of meditation as well as the various emic views, (b) I believe the etic view can have independent validity, and (c) I believe that a general rpg treatment must be etic.

-

A springboard for jumping don't creates the air nor the space in which the actual jump happens; rather, the air and the space are there.

In the same way, true methods for spiritual attainments don't create higher orders of reality: they are there, too. The methods are only springboards.

-

Adjustments in the brain chemistry to suit a higher order of reality through diverse spiritual practices doesn't prove that the higher order of reality witnessed by the practitioner is a subjective product inside the mind of a spiritual practicant. You can believe that it hints at that, but it's not really a demonstration.

Adjustments in the brain chemistry to suit a higher order of reality through spiritual practices isn't more than an adjustment to different pre-existent / self-existent realms of the Consciousness that are beyond -and sometimes below- the contemporary human "default consciousness mode" -which, BTW, is too an altered state of Consciousness, but this is far from being obvious because it's shared by most people in the world.

-

Well, I think that I'm aware of your views about this. We already talked about this and I'm familiarized with these points of view. Let me make a few comments, written without any disrespectful intention. You know that I'm honestly grateful to authors writing these great GURPS books like Low-Tech and many others.

No spiritual master could agree with what you're claiming in your post -OK, I guess that doesn't worry you in the least. OTOH I claim that in the contemporary world, there aren't spiritual masters around . . . To my mind, your explanation is a portrayal of the materialistic thinking, which is a philosophy and a set of beliefs, too, and certainly isn't lacking of an emic value inherent to the predominant weltanschauung:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic

An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.

No one can be neutral by discarding the so-called emic factor for keeping exclusively the so-called etic one. By doing that, one is consciously or unconsciously keeping the so-called emic factor of its own culture and world-view, clearly spoiling and interfering with any pretension of "objectivity" or "neutrality".

For me, one of the great delusions of the contemporary mentality is believing that the current set of scientist beliefs and convcitions are more objective and truer than the beliefs and convictions of other peoples and times. This often goes against any ethic of goodness and tolerance, because almost all cultures in the Earth have been destroyed by genocide and above all, by ethnocide ("intentional and systematic destruction of an ethnic culture") in the name of this supposed objectivity and debatable superior model of civilization. The agents of this destruction done by the western invasion and encroachment weren't only military forces, but Christian missionaries, humanitaristic ONGs, alien forms of clothing, alien technological devices, implanted industrial business, implanted mass-media . . .

However, at this point of the race, and since time ago, the situation is unstoppable. But there are a few "survivors".

The contemporary man is likes to judge and to speculate about peoples that he doesn't know, about civilizations entirely alien to him, and about cultures that are mostly or entirely extinted thousand of years or centuries ago, often using assumptions from distorted reports and wild speculations. Even more: this taste for learning about past peoples isn't pursued because love of knowledge alone, but for keeping and toughen the conviction of that the current way of life is truer and better. It's amusing that this same contemporary man can be "judged" and critically studied by a few persons that, while living in the 21st century, aren't caught in the dominant weltanschauung and pertain effectively to some of these ancient civilizations or are at least direct heirs of them. It's not usual, it's not frequent, but such "Low-Tech" persons exist today, and they can be able to be critical with contemporary beliefs, and the whole modern ideological apparatus isn't a true chanllenge nor is modifying them inwardly (BTW, this doesn't work by dissociation, but by discrimination between truth, falseness, partial degrees of truth, "optical delusions" and pure misinformation).

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, I'm also saying that the religious, theological, spiritual, and metaphysical theories of meditation contribute effectively zero to our actual understanding of it [meditation]. (...)

In a way, this works at the inverse, too: 21st century individuals don't need to understand the exact functioning of a microwave oven, or of a LED display, or a computer, or a mechanical vehicle for effectively using such technological devices. Such theories "contribute effectively zero" to their usage and experience. All they need to know is how to push some buttons. Additional theory doesn't change anything, for most people, in practice, is just fluff.

OTOH, 21st century "Low-Tech" individuals can handle the same devices with the same ease and they can have even different ideas regarding how they are working. Of course, being "scientifically informed" is, for these individuals, another way of being aware of the beliefs own of the people that surrounds them. And they can think critically, with the advantage of having a first hand knowledge of at least one of the so-called "Low-Tech peoples", which helps in viewing the entire canvas.

Originally Posted by Low Tech Companion 1: Philosophers and Kings, p. 16

Anthropologist Mircea Eliade coined the term technologies of the sacred for these practices, which can indeed be regarded as a kind of technology.

Mircea Eliade is a well known author, and many of his works have a positive value, I'm not doubting that. But it's also well know that he didn't understand properly most of the data that he gathered even personally from different cultures. His merits are notable, particularly in comparison with other anthropologists, but . . . there are many points in his thinking and works in which I disagree, and this term ("technologies of the sacred") that LCT 1 is using is one of them -between many others. Anyway I'm not going to make a great deal of this, because I'm enough happy with LCT 1 as it is.

Mircea Eliade, as another student of all but master of nothing was unable to reach the goals of any spiritual path, and became solidary with Carl Gustav Jung and his "Process of Individuation", which is not only phychologism -in the sense of phychological reductionism- but also a very deceptive and dangerous distortion of legitimate spiritual doctrines and practices. So, having failed his spiritual quest, Mircea Eliade was described in 1988 as "a strayed Parsifal" by Enrico Montanari.

Originally Posted by whswhs

(...) I believe that a general rpg treatment must be etic.

I understand that rpg books aren't going to be successful in the market in they don't adhere, in some way, to the dominant weltanschauung, world-view and its inherent so-called emic accounts.

And yes, discussing this can be really long. I can't assure that I'm going to be able to answer to the following replies. I know you, most of you, or the vast majority of you aren't agreeing with me in most or all of these subjects. I understand that enough well.

Still, I think that occasionally speaking about things that defy the current system of thought can be interesting and useful in expected and unexpected directions.

Thanks for reading so far.