--- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In [email protected], ditzyklanmail <carc108@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4 > > > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : ) > > > > That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harris where he nails > > Deepak on the same thing. > > > > It would be great to find the symposium footage where Maharishi got nailed > > for this kind of physics sounding mumbo jumbo by a visiting physicist. I > > forget his name. Max Planck?
Thats AMAZING. In that Max Plank died in 1947. M was communicating with the soul of the father of quantum physics. Was it Max Fliescher? > He kept calling Maharishi on the his attempt to equate of the vacuum state > with consciousness. > > Domash would say "Maharishi says quantum field (or whatever) IS PC" to great > nervous titters of laughter. On one hand one knew rationally this is bogus, > but then one thinks, "well, maybe M. is seeing this from some deep profound > level and QF maybe really IS PC ... " and then wonders why their lips and > tongue are suddenly so purple. > > But M. and TMO are hardly the only ones stretching the boundaries of reality. > So many books and videos on the "obvious" overlap of eastern mysticism and > western physics. > > > Once he sniffed out that Maharishi was attempting to use it as more than a > > metaphor and was trying to usurp the creditability of quantum mechanics for > > his own pet assertions he got quite heated about it. It was the only time > > I saw Maharishi called out for intellectual dishonesty by a guy who would > > not back down. The other time when he was called out but the guy did back > > down was when Johnathan Sheer called him on the assertion that the state of > > Pure Consciousness can be logically inferred from the other three. "Then > > you must change your logic" was the effective thought stopper which > > silenced Johnathan from trained philosopher to drooling sycophant. > > > > The use of the bogus proof by metaphor is a common feature of people who > > were trained in this style of conflation by Maharishi. I was a big fan of > > it myself when I was a believer and the whole educational model of MIU made > > much use of it. > > One can get so wrapped up in metaphoric-based truth -- because it FEELS so > right - once in synch with the metaphor "feeling" - one can spin on and on > and on -- fueled by that "ah ha" experience of light one has - (only to > realize (years) later it was a virtual fluctuation of nothingness in a vast > field of nothingness. > > And try to argue with someone with this mode of functioning -- its near > impossible since their "knowledge" is so transcendental to the actual world > and fact. > > But when the bubble bursts -- one wonders "what was I thinking?!" Nothingness. > > On the other hand (and I have many hands), one can experience something > noteworthy. Real. Even profound. But interpreting that with ones own biases > and filters can muck up the truth works with gusto. "Of course that is the > Quantum Field -- it has to be, it was so special, I am so special, the TMO is > so special (and elite and profound) -- on the vanguard of truth and > righteousness" > > "How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the core of > Creation)? See almost everyone" > > The sadness is that the experience itself may be significant -- in the sense > of outside the norm -- some new territory. > > > The shame is that using metaphors to illustrate things proven by other > > means is a great teaching technique. What erodes its educational value is > > this attempt to blur the line between metaphor and identity and especially > > the con artist trick of using sciency sounding terms to lend creditability > > to baseless assertions. > > But the teacher needs to be on guard -- its easy to get sucked into the Truth > of that "ah ah" burst of energy and light. Turning a good teaching moment > into the pure field of suckiness. > > OTOH, though, an adjacent post From EmptyBill about the surroundings being > full of purushic type beings. In puja or in particpating in yagyas, there IS > something of significance and discernable in the surroundings -- as far as my > "senses" tell me. Its not expectation or buying into some myth. Its there. > But what is it? Even if people see such beings or structures, physically see, > that perception too can and needs to be deconstructed. Is it "out there" or > some enlivenment "in here"? > > > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types as to M's > health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Vaj <vajradhatu@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 7:38:14 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and > > > Jean Houston > > > > > > > > > From Gina over at TM-Free > > > > > > Many former TMers knew Deepak Chopra, his split with Maharishi, then > > > Chopra's repackaging of Maharishi's programs in a slightly more > > > mainstream package for his own financial gain. > > > > > > Deepak Chopra is now more of a household name than Maharishi ever was, > > > thus ABC invited him to a discussion on spirituality. > > > > > > Nightline's description of this show : > > > > > > The "Face-Off" is a recurring series where opposing sides debate hot > > > topics. In the sixth installment of the series, Deepak Chopra, a > > > physician and best-selling author of "How to Know God," and prominent > > > scholar, philosopher and writer Jean Houston, will face-off against > > > Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, and Sam > > > Harris, author of "The End of Faith" on the tension between God and > > > science." > > > > > > Gina's comments on the show: > > > > > > This conversation between critical thinkers with Chopra could just as > > > easily have taken place with Maharishi. > > > In this conversation, Chopra mouthes MMY's teachings, sometimes word for > > > word. > > > Coming from the same Hindu tradition, the Indian accent, and MMY's > > > pseudo-science jargon, Chopra inadvertently provides good comedy for > > > those familiar with Maharishi. > > > > > > Chopra speaks circuitous non-sense which can cause a hypnotic effect for > > > vulnerable listeners. > > > We've seen the hypnotic effect work with True Believers listening to > > > Maharishi. > > > > > > Chopra responds to discussion of the history of diety and sociology of > > > religion with vague circuitous monologues on consciousness, inner > > > experience and (undefined) quantum mechanics. This sounds so familiar! > > > > > > Many of us know the futility of conducting these same conversations with > > > TM or New Age True Believers! > > > (thus successful exit-counseling, "deprogramming, " requires a > > > professional) > > > > > > Per Sam Harris talking to Chopra : > > > "Sprinkling in a bunch of scientific terms with New Age terminology does > > > not make it scientific." > > > Harris also states that Chopra's merging of New Age philosophy with > > > scientific terminology is neither scientific nor spiritual. > > > > > > Unfortunately, True Believers listening to this show would merely state > > > that critics of Chopra or Maharishi are "lost in the darkness of > > > ignorance." > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch Chopra spew the fluff, and become angry when > > > confronted with analysis of his teachings. > > > > > > This Nightline show may be watched by clicking : > > > "Does God Have a Future" The Nightline Face-Off > > > > > > > > > > > > Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW! > > > http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/internetexplorer/ > > > > > >
