________________________________
From: tartbrain <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 30 March, 2010 9:17:02 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and
Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@
...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, 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.
I can get into either perspective -- that its an inner outer reality. Or maybe
just plain old delusion -- which is fine with me too -- its fascinating that
the mind can make non-real things seem so real. but Emptybills description of
purushas densely gathering -- I am not even sure what a group of purushas are
(outside the TMO)but the image conveys a deep feeling for me of entities of
pure consciousness light far intelligence and deep love gathering around
flickers of light "here" when such a flicker appears. That explanation would
fit well with my experience -- but also would that of the ceremony and art of
it all just triggers the release of some neurochemical that makes me feel like
love an light is around me. or as i say -- pure delusion is another viable
hypothesis.
> >
> > 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.
me too. But later today, after I read this this morning I thought how to
explain this to someone. And I was saying in my head -- its like he is
preserving the purity and essence of biblical times. sCREEECH halt.
Is he the western counterpart to Jerry Falwell or David Koresh (not necessarily
comparable) trying to revive pure christianity (just noticed that rhymes with
"insanity"). Or an extreme orthodox jew trying to revive pure judiasm? Yikes,
Neither image strikes me with great excitement. Why would vedic revival be too
much different? (unless you are a vedic fundamentalist and then it all makes
sense i suppose -- but thats my point -- who wants to be or live in a vedic
fundamentalist society?) And the whole activity at the jewish temple seems a
lot, at 5000 feet, like yagyas. Fundamental revivalist of ancient cultures --
is that progress? Though of course parts may be quite useful and insightful.
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.
>
I sort of resonate with the ideal of temple dancers. Maybe we could start by
just reviving that.
Mosh pits have purpose too! Hails to Kali and Shiva! : )
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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 FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > > <curtisdeltablues@ > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, 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.
The old days when a course meant people in line at a mic to ask questions. Some
souls would just not back off. Some up and left.
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: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > > 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/internetexplo rer/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/
