On Dec 29, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote:
omments interleaved below.
> --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Patrick Gillam wrote:
>
> > I'm curious - how many people here believe
> > consciousness is the fundamental substrate
> > of creation? If you do, what evidence do you
> > put forth to back up your belief?
>
> While I would agree that consciousness, the alaya-vijnana, is the
> basic substrate-consciousness, my answer changes when you add "of
> creation". By "of creation" I take that to mean the physical
universe.
> Once we include the universe as a physical object and seek to
identify
> or intuit a unifying substrate that transcends AND includes
> materiality it becomes a different answer.
I'm asking for viewpoints on Maharishi's teaching
that physical creation arises out of undifferentiated
consciousness. So yes, I'm wondering about a
substrate that transcends and includes materiality.
Well then that would be like the "consciousness only" school where
consciousness is the creator.
> From any "whole" that
> includes materiality I'd be forced to say prana is the unifying
field
> interconnecting all of these (consciousness(es) and materials), this
> and akasha or fundamental Space. The reason I include Space is
with a
> material object you need at least space. If that Space contains
> evolutionary activity, that Space requires Time. By "Time" I mean
"Big
> Time" or "macrocosmic time".
Seems to me that Space would arise out of
the substrate as well. And isn't prana a "relative"
phenomenon, to use Maharishi's phrasing, and
hence something that would be created from
an unmanifest, transcendent reality, as well?
In some ways-of-seeing, it is a subtle prana that is the sole support
for an individual between existences. The same applies to universes.
But even in yogic creation theory the "power of the mirror", the
vimarsha-shakti, is the power that allows infinite recursion to flesh-
out the Big Dream.
> If you ask about the individual consciousness' POV, it's a slightly
> different answer! It also changes if you use a word other than
> "creation". For example, I would prefer 'a network that is
> simultaneously network and node, node and network, instantaneously
> arising out of the sum interplay of a multiverse'. When that's the
> case, I can see and experience directly consciousness as primary.
But
> lest we fool ourselves we should also be aware that this also
implies
> a yogi would can pass his hand through matter as if it was truly an
> illusion. It's an easy claim to make, few truly and completely
live at
> that absolute a level, but they do IME exist. :-)
This is what I'm really interested in - empirical
evidence. Most of us got theory up the yinyang
30 years ago. By now it seems we'd have lots of
evidence to validate the theory.
I fear I'm dumbing down some fine detail here.
Well one thing these traditions do do, the Hindu and Buddhist
traditions, is tell you in no uncertain terms what level of fineness
our meditation has to be at for us to have clear insight into the
universe. The Hindu yogis point out that perception must be very
refined to even be able to cognize such insight. If you take the
shortest syllable that you can utter (called a "matra") and divide it
600 times, that's the level of subtlety of a mental cognition that a
yogi must perceive. This is the level of "microcosmic I-time" that a
yogi must have in order to perceive the multiverse as part of his or
her own direct experience. And I just don't see many meditators who
can perceive that finely. Most of what you hear people talking about
is projections from conditioning they've acquired, not very fine
cognition.
Yes, if you did have a meditation technique that went that subtle, we
would have all the evidence that we need!
It's one thing to wax philosophical about "the unified field", it's
quite another to truly experience it. In order to do that we need to
transcend the basic "refresh rate" of cognition, much like if you
could blink fast enough and in the correct timing, you could see that
the computer monitor you're using is actually just a sequence of
pulses, displayed on a screen or monitor.
Thanks for your thoughtful inquiry Patrick!
