Meditation?

[frobert]

Like a true materialist, you question “why some believe that Buddhist monk meditation–emptying the mind” leads dangerous when brain scans show it is neurobiologically identical to Catholic nun meditation."

Further information on the differences between material, neurobiological effects, and spiritual beings and spiritual effects:

The non-material can basically fall into two categories: 1) non-material things; and 2) non-material beings. Non-material things would be, for example, something like an idea. Do ideas have physical boundaries - height, weight, depth, etc.? No. Can you see an idea? You can see the fruit of an idea - an invention, a poem, etc. - but can you see the idea itself? No. Now, a materialist would say that an idea is merely an electrical impulse firing through the neurons of your brain. Maybe so, but what about concepts such as freedom, love, rights, hope, truth, and so on? Are these merely electrical impulses traveling through the mind - well, no such thing as a “mind” in a materialist-only universe - traveling through the brain? Is freedom not an objective reality? Would a materialist who was locked in a jail cell, and who demanded to be set free, be satisfied with the jailer’s response of, “Freedom is all in your head, there’s no such thing!”?

Still, though, the materialist might say, “Yep, all those things are simply in one’s brain as electrical impulses.” Which would mean that they essentially have no argument for the existence of such a thing as human “rights”. Rights are non-material. If they only exist as impulses in a person’s brain, if they are not objective realities in and of themselves, then no one has any rights. There is no right to life. To happiness. To freedom of speech. To freedom of religion. To freedom…of any kind, period. Pretty grim world we would be living in.

But, what about truth? Here is where the materialist has all sorts of problems that they just can’t claim can be solved by an appeal to electrical impulses firing through neurons in the brain. What is the material universe governed by? Non-material laws of physics. These laws are true. The law of gravity is true. The laws of thermodynamics are true. The laws of chemistry are true. The laws of mathematics are true. Has anyone ever seen gravity? Does gravity have height, weight, length, width, or depth? What about time? Is time real? Is it material? What about truth? Does it have spatial dimensions? Is it a material item? What about the mathematical concept of pi? You can’t slice it because it isn’t material. But it’s true! It exists!

So, I contend the existence of non-material things - concepts, laws, truth, and such - that every single human being is aware of and affected by, whether they will admit that they objectively exist or not.

My argument is simple. It’s based on Occam’s razor or the law of economy.

Occam’s razor. …also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Your argument based solely on the belief in the authority of a religion which you believe is infallible is unnecessarily complex.

When it comes to actual use of meditation you don’t realize that we are saying much the same thing. The CC tells its flock not to use meditation other than prayer for religious purposes which is a sensible request for Catholics but not for Buddhists or Hindus or other mystics. Finally, we both agree that meditation can be dangerous but for different reasons.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

My argument is simple. It’s based on Occam’s razor or the law of economy.

Occam’s razor. …also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Your argument based solely on the belief in the authority of a religion which you believe is infallible is unnecessarily complex.

When it comes to actual use of meditation you don’t realize that we are saying much the same thing. The CC tells its flock not to use meditation other than prayer for religious purposes which is a sensible request for Catholics but not for Buddhists or Hindus or other mystics. Finally, we both agree that meditation can be dangerous but for different reasons.

You apply Occam’s Razor inappropriately to our discussion. You can’t apply scientific theories to religion in the first place, but you attack my religious beliefs, for not going by someone’s *scientific **theory. *My stand is that your form of meditation is dangerous spiritually. You are self contradicting as well in claiming to be Christian, while living a life and promoting things along the lines of Stephen Hawkings, who is not a true scientist anyway, because of his athiestic bias, a bias that all religions are just man made, a bias that you support. Your meditative practices are not Christian, they are part of an opposing religion, whether or not you *intend *them that way or not. So by practicing them, you must believe, to remain “safe” from demons, that false religions are not inspired by satan. That would be fine, but that would make you not Christian, and to have any credibility in this argument and remain intellectually honest with yourself you should admit that you are not Christian, rather, that you are New Age or atheistic.

I do not have to prove my religious belief that certain forms of meditation are dangerous spiritually, by scientific evidence, or by your “simple is better” theory. Spirituality is not simple; it does not contradict, but by nature goes *beyond science, in fact, is infinite, which is not even completely understandable by our finite, human minds. It is true that one cannot prove the existence of God, or satan, for that matter, by the use of reason alone. (See the post before the one to which you responded. You can’t prove the nonmaterial.) First one has to have trust in an authoritative source. In the case of the Catholic Church, the source is Christ, because he worked miracles beyond * all scientific explanation, the most witnessed thing in all of recorded history. So if there is any evidence that existence is not simple, goes beyond what our minds can conceive, and that the complex even entered the world to communicate truth to humans, it rests in Christ, not in our simple selves, and meditative self-seeking.

As far as your assertion that some forms of meditation can be dangerous because Catholics are falsely saying they are, that’s just ludicrous, not simple, and is like saying no religion has a right to believe other religions are wrong, or to even exist. In your view we must all hold to the Stephen Hawkings athiestic, self worship promoting delusion that all religions are inspired by man. But it wouldn’t be very simple, then, to explain the scientifically impossible, how such a complex, finely tuned world evolved from absolutely nothing, now would it.

 

[frobert]

I accept that your reasoning is predicated on your beliefs.

 

[frobert]

You apply Occam’s Razor inappropriately to our discussion. You can’t apply scientific theories to religion in the first place, but you attack my religious beliefs, for not going by someone’s *scientific **theory. *My stand is that your form of meditation is dangerous spiritually. You are self contradicting as well in claiming to be Christian, while living a life and promoting things along the lines of Stephen Hawkings, who is not a true scientist anyway, because of his athiestic bias, a bias that all religions are just man made, a bias that you support. Your meditative practices are not Christian, they are part of an opposing religion, whether or not you *intend *them that way or not. So by practicing them, you must believe, to remain “safe” from demons, that false religions are not inspired by satan. That would be fine, but that would make you not Christian, and to have any credibility in this argument and remain intellectually honest with yourself you should admit that you are not Christian, rather, that you are New Age or atheistic.

I do not have to prove my religious belief that certain forms of meditation are dangerous spiritually, by scientific evidence, or by your “simple is better” theory. Spirituality is not simple; it does not contradict, but by nature goes *beyond science, in fact, is infinite, which is not even completely understandable by our finite, human minds. It is true that one cannot prove the existence of God, or satan, for that matter, by the use of reason alone. (See the post before the one to which you responded. You can’t prove the nonmaterial.) First one has to have trust in an authoritative source. In the case of the Catholic Church, the source is Christ, because he worked miracles beyond * all scientific explanation, the most witnessed thing in all of recorded history. So if there is any evidence that existence is not simple, goes beyond what our minds can conceive, and that the complex even entered the world to communicate truth to humans, it rests in Christ, not in our simple selves, and meditative self-seeking.

As far as your assertion that some forms of meditation can be dangerous because Catholics are falsely saying they are, that’s just ludicrous, not simple, and is like saying no religion has a right to believe other religions are wrong, or to even exist. In your view we must all hold to the Stephen Hawkings athiestic, self worship promoting delusion that all religions are inspired by man. But it wouldn’t be very simple, then, to explain the scientifically impossible, how such a complex, finely tuned world evolved from absolutely nothing, now would it.

I accept that your reasoning is predicated on your beliefs.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

I accept that your reasoning is predicated on your beliefs.

Which I never denied. But you don’t accept that your reasoning is biased, not on science, but on your beliefs. You don’t believe demons can invade a compromised self awareness. This is your belief, and your assumption. It’s fine with me that you have it, but it has nothing to do with science, and you have no right to impose your beliefs on my Church. I can only guess the reasons why you would try to do so on a Catholic website. You have nothing in science to determine, either way, the activity of the preternatural, or lack thereof, and therefore you falsely claim science “proves” demonic influence doesn’t exist. Nonsense. Furthermore, I have given you plenty of evidence to prove what you are doing to yourself was done by the earliest gnostics, who also feigned Judeo Christianity, and by *alchemists, *who use what man knows through science or psychology to obtain a false awareness or unity with the world, signs and wonders, or powers through “the self” - rather than God - delusion at its finest. In contrast to that, the Church has always sought truth outside oneself, knowing psychology and the suggestibility of inner labyrnths of the human mind, and encouraged Catholics to question and confirm everything through the use of reason.

 

[frobert]

Which I never denied. But you don’t accept that your reasoning is biased, not on science, but on your beliefs. You don’t believe demons can invade a compromised self awareness. This is your belief, and your assumption. It’s fine with me that you have it, but it has nothing to do with science, and you have no right to impose your beliefs on my Church. I can only guess the reasons why you would try to do so on a Catholic website. You have nothing in science to determine, either way, the activity of the preternatural, or lack thereof, and therefore you falsely claim science “proves” demonic influence doesn’t exist. Nonsense. Furthermore, I have given you plenty of evidence to prove what you are doing to yourself was done by the earliest gnostics, who also feigned Judeo Christianity, and by *alchemists, *who use what man knows through science or psychology to obtain a false awareness or unity with the world, signs and wonders, or powers through “the self” - rather than God - delusion at its finest. In contrast to that, the Church has always sought truth outside oneself, knowing psychology and the suggestibility of inner labyrnths of the human mind, and encouraged Catholics to question and confirm everything through the use of reason.

Are you accusing me of not accepting a CC belief based on the on their authority? If so your are correct.

Your mischaracterization of my relationship with the the CC is unsupported. As far as I know it is not against forum rules to discuss a view not supported by the CC. I simply disagree with their reasoning or lack thereof regarding raising demons through meditation.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

Are you accusing me of not accepting a CC belief based on the on their authority? If so your are correct.

Your mischaracterization of my relationship with the the CC is unsupported. As far as I know it is not against forum rules to discuss a view not supported by the CC. I simply disagree with their reasoning or lack thereof regarding raising demons through meditation.

Of course I never blamed you for discussing a view against Church teaching. I am not accusing you of taking a stand against a Catholic position, (as your view is clearly against it. ) What I accused you of, as you very well know, is falsely positioning your view* as *]authentic science, when it is, in fact, just another belief. It is one thing to oppose a Church teaching. It is another, to accuse the church of bad motivations, or to say the Church doesn’t have a right to hold fast to the teachings of Christ. I have proved, time and time again, that Church teaching against your meditation practices, is as old as Christ himself. I suggest your beef is not with the Catholic Church, but with Christ Himself. Christ gave authority to the Church only to preserve truths that He Himself taught, nothing else. I quoted scripture to prove that Christ Himself warned of the dangers of emptying the mind. It is you who said you were “Christian”. Therefore, it is you who are intellectually dishonest; not the Church.

 

[frobert]

Of course I never blamed you for discussing a view against Church teaching. I am not accusing you of taking a stand against a Catholic position, (as your view is clearly against it. ) What I accused you of, as you very well know, is falsely positioning your view* as *]authentic science,

when it is, in fact, just another belief. It is one thing to oppose a Church teaching. It is another, to accuse the church of bad motivations, or to say the Church doesn’t have a right to hold fast to the teachings of Christ. I have proved, time and time again, that Church teaching against your meditation practices, is as old as Christ himself. I suggest your beef is not with the Catholic Church, but with Christ Himself. Christ gave authority to the Church only to preserve truths that He Himself taught, nothing else. I quoted scripture to prove that Christ Himself warned of the dangers of emptying the mind. It is you who said you were “Christian”. Therefore, it is you who are intellectually dishonest; not the Church.

If you read my posts you will find several links to scientific and psychological inquiry that clearly offer alternate hypothesis to demon influence. That doesn’t disprove demons but from my perspective there is no need for preternatural speculation when physical evidence points to much simpler explanations.

BTW, the discussion may be fun but is frivolous. If one believes in Christ it doesn’t make sense to be dabbling in non-Christian religions. Christians indulging in esoteric forms of eastern religious meditation have distanced themselves from Christianity.

I have known several Buddhists and have learned that idea of the devil is Mara–the allegorical nature of evil. For Buddhists Mara represents the egotistical pleasures, sensuality, sin, and death. In other words Buddhists are just as anti-evil as are Christians.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

If you read my posts you will find several links to scientific and psychological inquiry that clearly offer alternate hypothesis to demon influence. That doesn’t disprove demons but from my perspective there is no need for preternatural speculation when physical evidence points to much simpler explanations.

BTW, the discussion may be fun but is frivolous. If one believes in Christ it doesn’t make sense to be dabbling in non-Christian religions. Christians indulging in esoteric forms of eastern religious meditation have distanced themselves from Christianity.

I have known several Buddhists and have learned that idea of the devil is Mara–the allegorical nature of evil. For Buddhists Mara represents the egotistical pleasures, sensuality, sin, and death. In other words Buddhists are just as anti-evil as are Christians.

No, this is not a conversation. A normal conversation is two sided. It is frivolous is because you are clearly intellectually dishonest.

1. You won’t admit that your belief “emptying the mind does not leave the door open for possible demonic influence” is just that, a belief. It breaks down to “It is simpler for me to believe there is none.”
2. You couch your belief in pop psychology and athiest based pseudo scientific (think Stephen Hawkings) theory, to *pretend *your belief has more credibility than my belief. Whereas I honestly state my belief is not contrary to science, just way beyond its grasp.
3. You stated you were Christian, you stated Christians indulging in esoteric forms of eastern religious meditation have distanced themselves from Christianity, yet you promote eastern forms of religious meditation (emptying the mind) as harmless for Christians, unless “Catholics” mind jump demons into the participants. You join Catholic forums to do this.
4. You falsely imply that Buddhism is just as anti-evil as Christianity, just because, like most false religions, it mimics Christianity, with the equivalent of an evil being and a good being. Having some friends who think they are against evil, and intend no evil, has nothing to do with the objective right or wrong of their religion, and that religion’s true spiritual nature, end, or danger. Because A is not B, A cannot say B is not B, when one practices B. You are thinking illogically, like a typical relativist.

Your repeated failure to honestly address your own contradictions makes me conclude you must be just some internet troll with an agenda against Catholicism.

 

[frobert]

No, this is not a conversation. A normal conversation is two sided. It is frivolous is because you are clearly intellectually dishonest.

Your repeated failure to honestly address your own contradictions makes me conclude you must be just some internet troll with an agenda against Catholicism.

You are right there can not be a normal conversation if you continue with your unsupported assertions.

I have gone out of my way to be courteous to you and your beliefs without any reciprocation on your part.

BTW, psychoanalytic personality theory is not pop psychology nor is neurobiology a pseudo-science.

 

[frobert]

1. You stated you were Christian, you stated Christians indulging in esoteric forms of eastern religious meditation have distanced themselves from Christianity, yet you promote eastern forms of religious meditation (emptying the mind) as harmless for Christians, unless “Catholics” mind jump demons into the participants. You join Catholic forums to do this…

Are you suggesting that a religious person can have conflicting beliefs? My view is that the can not, i.e.when a Christian practices a non-Christian religion they are in reality distancing themselves from their Christian religion.

Reread my posts. Where have I promoted esoteric forms of meditation for either Christians or non-Christians? Where have I said that non-Christian meditation is harmless for Christians? If you are accusing me of having respect for Buddhist beliefs for Buddhists you are correct.

I did say:

When it comes to actual use of meditation you don’t realize that we are saying much the same thing. The CC tells its flock not to use meditation other than prayer for religious purposes which is a sensible request for Catholics but not for Buddhists or Hindus or other mystics. Finally, we both agree that meditation can be dangerous but for different reasons.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

You are right there can not be a normal conversation if you continue with your unsupported assertions.

I have gone out of my way to be courteous to you and your beliefs without any reciprocation on your part.

BTW, psychoanalytic personality theory is not pop psychology nor is neurobiology a pseudo-science.

Courteousness is subjective. Intellectual dishonesty is not courteous, in my opinion, and I think you’d agree that no normal conversation can be had without honesty. If you are not being honest, I am not being “rude” for stating this objective fact. I did point out that Occam’s Razor is just a principle of parsimony, not a principle which demands belief. I proved this to you* in many different ways*. Just because you dismiss my assertions does not mean that I didn’t support them. Occam was a nominalist. His theory was intrinsically erroneous, first and most obviously, because it went against the law of contingency - Occam’s Razor means science wouldn’t exist in the first place (read Aristotle) and secondly - objective reality says the simplest answers aren’t always the* correct *ones. That is why the lower sciences, (beginner biologists) for example, tend to include some atheists, while the higher sciences; logicians, realists and mathematicians, believe in the non material. Remember, you came on my Catholic site to knock a Catholic belief, so you carry the weight of proving your anti Catholic bias and beliefs correct, which you have not done, and cannot do. I did not come on your site to assert Christ’s teachings about demons. And once again, the non material world can be logically deduced, but not proved.

Since you can’t keep up with logic and facts, you now turned subjective on me. I predict you will try soon, to get out of this discussion entirely. You called yourself courteous, right after I proved your intellectual dishonesty, but once again, you failed to explain how you can even call yourself Christian. If you really are a Christian, you know a belief in the non material is a prerequisite for a Christian, as well as a belief that Christ is the source of all truth, yet you condone practices Christ condemned, as well as using studies from psychologists and scientists with a clear anti-spiritual bias, to do it.

There is a talk by Patrick Madrid, (perhaps available on this very site?) about how such atheistic scientism proves the existence of its own anti-spiritual bias. For example, if you have all the data and evidence in front of you, the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead would fit the data best, but you have to have an anti-spiritual bias (belief that the non material doesn’t exist) to conclude the more “simple” answer - “the apostles hid the body” because the apostles hiding the body would be simpler, but it doesn’t even fit the data.

I posted links for you about well intended Christian people experiencing strange, superhuman energies and highs after “emptying the mind” meditation, powers that could not have come from auto suggestion, or themselves, without outside influence. I gave you an abundance of information about this form of meditation being used since the time of the ancient pagan religions, to procure such signs and wonders from the occult. Yet you just dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. It is you who did not reciprocate. Courteous? Christian? I think not.

Finally, it is said of the philosophers and astrologers (scientists) of old, that they tried to fit their heads into the heavens above them. But in today’s world, people try to fit heaven into their heads, and their heads split. I suggest you look outside the labrynths of your fallible human mind, to figure out why you have such disproportionate energy to be so militant about promoting traditionally occult meditative practices, while assuming the alleged non interference of spiritual beings. The simplest answer, that you are just stupid, doesn’t fit the data, and I can’t help but wonder why you don’t spend more time using reason and logic to find truth, instead of an inner emptiness that results in lies, obsession and mania like this.

 

[frobert]

Courteousness is subjective. Intellectual dishonesty is not courteous, in my opinion, and I think you’d agree that no normal conversation can be had without honesty. If you are not being honest, I am not being “rude” for stating this objective fact. I did point out that Occam’s Razor is just a principle of parsimony, not a principle which demands belief. I proved this to you* in many different ways*. Just because you dismiss my assertions does not mean that I didn’t support them. Occam was a nominalist. His theory was intrinsically erroneous, first and most obviously, because it went against the law of contingency - Occam’s Razor means science wouldn’t exist in the first place (read Aristotle) and secondly - objective reality says the simplest answers aren’t always the* correct *ones. That is why the lower sciences, (beginner biologists) for example, tend to include some atheists, while the higher sciences; logicians, realists and mathematicians, believe in the non material. Remember, you came on my Catholic site to knock a Catholic belief, so you carry the weight of proving your anti Catholic bias and beliefs correct, which you have not done, and cannot do. I did not come on your site to assert Christ’s teachings about demons. And once again, the non material world can be logically deduced, but not proved.

Since you can’t keep up with logic and facts, you now turned subjective on me. I predict you will try soon, to get out of this discussion entirely. You called yourself courteous, right after I proved your intellectual dishonesty, but once again, you failed to explain how you can even call yourself Christian. If you really are a Christian, you know a belief in the non material is a prerequisite for a Christian, as well as a belief that Christ is the source of all truth, yet you condone practices Christ condemned, as well as using studies from psychologists and scientists with a clear anti-spiritual bias, to do it.

There is a talk by Patrick Madrid, (perhaps available on this very site?) about how such atheistic scientism proves the existence of its own anti-spiritual bias. For example, if you have all the data and evidence in front of you, the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead would fit the data best, but you have to have an anti-spiritual bias (belief that the non material doesn’t exist) to conclude the more “simple” answer - “the apostles hid the body” because the apostles hiding the body would be simpler, but it doesn’t even fit the data.

I posted links for you about well intended Christian people experiencing strange, superhuman energies and highs after “emptying the mind” meditation, powers that could not have come from auto suggestion, or themselves, without outside influence. I gave you an abundance of information about this form of meditation being used since the time of the ancient pagan religions, to procure such signs and wonders from the occult. Yet you just dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. It is you who did not reciprocate. Courteous? Christian? I think not.

Finally, it is said of the philosophers and astrologers (scientists) of old, that they tried to fit their heads into the heavens above them. But in today’s world, people try to fit heaven into their heads, and their heads split. I suggest you look outside the labrynths of your fallible human mind, to figure out why you have such disproportionate energy to be so militant about promoting traditionally occult meditative practices, while assuming the alleged non interference of spiritual beings. The simplest answer, that you are just stupid, doesn’t fit the data, and I can’t help but wonder why you don’t spend more time using reason and logic to find truth, instead of an inner emptiness that results in lies, obsession and mania like this.

Are you ok?

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

Are you ok?

Quite well, thank you. Have a great night!

 

[frobert]

Quite well, thank you. Have a great night!

a rant can be cathartic.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

a rant can be cathartic.

I wouldn’t know. If it works for you, that’s another technique I want nothing to do with.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

Are you suggesting that a religious person can have conflicting beliefs? My view is that the can not, i.e.when a Christian practices a non-Christian religion they are in reality distancing themselves from their Christian religion.

Reread my posts. Where have I promoted esoteric forms of meditation for either Christians or non-Christians? Where have I said that non-Christian meditation is harmless for Christians? If you are accusing me of having respect for Buddhist beliefs for Buddhists you are correct.

I did say:

I’m sorry. I overlooked these questions you asked me. No, of course I am not suggesting that a religious person can have conflicting beliefs. Like I said, you cannot be a true Christian and practice and promote non Christian beliefs. You have promoted the non Christian, esoteric form of meditation all over your posts, the “emptying of the mind” technique “to relax”. If you look up the definition of esoteric, and the authentic history of this bizarre meditative practice, you will find it is clearly an esoteric practice, intended only for those seeking something more than simple relaxation. The vast majority of people using this today have absolutely no idea what they are getting into. And finally, if you claim to believe in Christianity as the true religion, yet respect a false religion, like Buddhism, or delusions, as a “good” for “other people”, you prove yourself not only Christian, but not even charitable.

What I like to do to relax, not that you asked, is search the forums for posts like yours, because dismantling your errors is as easy and fun as doing a simple crossword puzzle, the healthier choice mind treat, so to speak, however, the weekend is over, and I’ve got to get back to work. So I bid you a fond adieu and wish you the true peace for which you seem to be in search of.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

You wrote:

Reread my posts. Where have I promoted esoteric forms of meditation for either Christians or non-Christians? Where have I said that non-Christian meditation is harmless for Christians?

“Not thinking of anything” is not New age, it is a centuries’ old practice of quieting the mind which results in the relaxation response.

 

[frobert]

You wrote:

Reread my posts. Where have I promoted esoteric forms of meditation for either Christians or non-Christians? Where have I said that non-Christian meditation is harmless for Christians?

“Not thinking of anything” is not New age, it is a centuries’ old practice of quieting the mind which results in the relaxation response.

How you equate promotion with a centuries old practice is beyond me but if you say so…

Last post for a few months. Have fun

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

How you equate promotion with a centuries old practice is beyond me but if you say so…

Last post for a few months. Have fun

promotion
prəˈmōSHən ]
NOUN

activity that supports or provides active encouragement for the furtherance of a cause, venture, or aim:
"disease prevention and health promotion"
synonyms: encouragement · advocacy · furtherance · furthering · More
the action of raising someone to a higher position or rank or the fact of being so raised:
"majors designated for promotion to lieutenant colonel"
synonyms: upgrading · preferment · elevation · advancement · More

Your purposeful and stubborn minimization of the connection of this centuries old religion and meditation to New Age, and distortion of the purposes for which this form of meditation was practiced years ago, minimizes the spiritual risks inherent in this form of meditation, as well as advocating it as a healthy, benign “relaxation” method i.e., promotion. I also predicted you would leave the discussion. Good bye, and good luck!