There is no scientific correlary to measure using thos terms. (Which are, like a

There is no scientific correlary to measure using thos terms. (Which are, like all hindu symbols, almost incomprehensibly dense). Since I know you (and think you’re briliant insightful and all around amazing 😉 ) I understand your meaning.
And if you want me to ‘science’ what you’re referring to, it takes quite a bit of intelligence, qutie a bit of accumulated knowledge, and quite a bit of practice of focusing attention whether visual, verbal, or experiential, achieving the auto-associative state most people can only achieve through hallucinogenic chemicals, but others can achieve through extraordinary discipline and practice.
So there is a difference between who has the capacity to learn to do so, who has the motivation to do so, and who will put in the absurd amount of work to do so – or spend enough time accumulating knowledge, using hallucinogens and practicing patient autoassociative contemplation to bring it about.
In my experience the rather normal way to achieve understanding of symbolism etc which I as taught in the arts vs theology or mysticism, is just staturating yourself in the medium as your primary interest, and trying to associate what you read, and what you exprience with those studies. I can do this with art. I can do it with what you might call ‘logic’. I cannot do it with literature. And I am completely unable to do what you are a master of, which is step in to the minds of common people in history.
This set of techniques is quite a bit easier in some cultures (india), less so in others (theology), less so in proto-rational (china) and much less so in ratio-empircal-skeptical (european).
So you know, now that you’ve made me think about this I’m going to put it in the mental background processor and see what insights I can come up with. 😉
Hugs and such.

Reply addressees: @whatifalthist