--- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Was it Max Fliescher? > > > > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more > > interesting. > > > > Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure > > what I would ascribe your perception about yagyas, but I will say that I > > still have it and don't believe it means that anything profound is > > happening in the environment. I believe it is an aspect of my artistic > > mind and that getting a good buzz from ceremony is a practiced skill. My > > complaint about yagyas is about the claims of effecting the physical world > > or demonstrating how the world really works. > > Yes -- as you know, I am not talking about claimed far reaching effects. I am > talking about the here and now experience of something profound which is not > experienced in any other context. I experienced at my first puja at > initiation. I experienced it more intensely after doing 30 pujas (teaching 30 > people) in a day and being absorbed into that THING. I have experienced > around some people and teachers. I have experienced it when I participate > (not just view -- but offering rice etc) in yagyas. I have had a seemingly > large number of experiences of it being in certain contexts, an not there in > most others. But what it is, how I interpret it etc is a different thing. > Maybe i should just "Enjoy". Which may have been M's most profound teaching.
This in my opinion is Sam Harris's greatest contribution to skeptical thought. His understanding that there are many states of mind experienced by meditators or people doing traditional spiritual practices that we don't understand and should study. I wouldn't be surprised that some form of meditation proves to be really valuable, but I doubt it will be in the way the traditional context claims. But for all of us who have been to the mountain, the fact that the mind can experience amazing things is undeniable. I still love the puja and think it is one of the most fascinating things I learned with Maharishi. Singing a few lines never fails to blow the mind of any Indian taxi driver I get! I am also a fan of Maharishi's Vedic preservation efforts with the pundits. I believe it is a valuable part of our human history. Although I might put it slightly behind preserving the traditional hula dance on a scale of important folk traditions to preserve for posterity, in fairness, hula dancing gives me a boner. > > > > As a fun party that I can enjoy them. Most of them go on too long for my > > taste however and I wouldn't pay more than a nightclub cover charge for the > > privilege! > > > > ME> > > Chopra learned from the Master well. > > > > Tart> > And yet, he appears to be so much more real than TMO and raja types > > as to M's health, status, personal doubt, etc. > > > > I believe this is also part of his adjustment to more modern skepticism and > > education. He understands the well exposed to spirituality California > > mindset. Maharishi was still running his 1960's level of gullibility in > > society till the end. Chopra modernized it and is aware of skeptical > > challenges so he qualifies his assertions more. But he gets caught being > > slippery by Sam in the debate because he doesn't have much intellectual > > integrity in his presentations. He will qualify terms into something so > > bland that no one could disagree like calling God universal energy. He > > tries to appear much more rational than he is really being with his claims > > by invoking and misusing science terms. So he sounds really sane about > > Maharishi being a normal man but then will also claim that Maharishi had an > > inner wisdom about how the world really is, a special insight that is > > enlightened. He seems to make this claim more realistic by mentioning > > Maharishi's faults but it is just as bold an assertion as when a Raja makes > > it or claims as Domash did that Maharishi is "nature speaking English." > > Talk about jumping the shark! That was Domash's moment for me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
