Thanks Judy and Sparaig for both of your inputs on this subject. Both answers 
are worthy of a second reading and I love how they require an expansion of the 
mind to grasp these wonderful concepts. Isn't life great when it is 
unpredictable and unknown? Being ignorant like I am means I can always be 
surprised and my boundaries stretched and snapped.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote:
>
> I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental 
> technique) is possible, but you should understand that "law of nature" in 
> science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term.
> 
> A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be 
> false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated.
> 
> For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is 
> perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of light 
> is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second.
> 
> The "laws" of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you 
> try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what 
> to do.
> 
> 
> IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it 
> will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), and will 
> not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those special 
> circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of the 
> universe, not a total rewrite, any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or 
> General Relativity required us to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only 
> deals with phenomenon that could be observed in Newton's time.
> 
> Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least 
> not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an 
> unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific theory 
> is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it in any 
> realistic way.
> 
> 
> Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human 
> nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least 
> somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory.
> 
> Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the universe 
> that might result from practicing them is "really real" by MMY''s definition, 
> is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not floating and so 
> on are actually possible.
> 
> 
> L
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do 
> > so is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of 
> > course, this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we 
> > don't know about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all 
> > the laws of nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law 
> > of gravity etc. are inherently somehow "anti" true laws of nature or even 
> > negative ones. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all 
> > the other principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they 
> > are not. If "not" then they are evidently not "laws". Riddle me that one 
> > Batman.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > > > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research,
> > > > > experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any 
> > > > > conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a
> > > > > metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a
> > > > > scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as
> > > > > different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems
> > > > > like the best approach.
> > > > 
> > > > Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position
> > > > on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that
> > > > the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented
> > > > his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the
> > > > issue is significantly controversial.
> > > > 
> > > > The "best approach" in this case is faute de mieux.
> > > > 
> > > > (snip)
> > > > > Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and
> > > > > brain are psychological rather than having anything to
> > > > > do with the reality of the situation. Suppose,
> > > > > hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible
> > > > > that showed mind and brain were identical in every way
> > > > > and physical. What would that do for you psychologically?
> > > > > And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse
> > > > > was possible to prove, what would that do for you?
> > > > 
> > > > "The reality of the situation" is that hypothetically,
> > > > Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but
> > > > not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by
> > > > levitation) but not falsified.
> > > 
> > > I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward 
> > > bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation 
> > > is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown 
> > > out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. 
> > > 
> > > But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and 
> > > spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power 
> > > required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the 
> > > investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration 
> > > of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, 
> > > such as magnetic fields etc.
> > > 
> > > The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical 
> > > explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the 
> > > un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the giant 
> > > hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial fart 
> > > rays, or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one off the 
> > > ground.
> > > 
> > > One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more 
> > > scientific knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical 
> > > explanations as a result seem to have less lustre.
> > > 
> > > When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally 
> > > awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an 
> > > electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they are 
> > > different in every brain, though typically in the same general areas. 
> > > Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, and 
> > > interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates words. 
> > > 
> > > If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for 
> > > each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to 
> > > work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor 
> > > or tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a 
> > > general plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for tat 
> > > correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is damaged that 
> > > leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different ways of looking at 
> > > the same process.
> > > 
> > > For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain 
> > > could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. Yet 
> > > she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that 
> > > consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the brain, 
> > > and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored in a 
> > > separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain pulls all 
> > > this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is currently 
> > > unknown.
> > > 
> > > If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain incapacitate 
> > > the mind? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if the brain is 
> > > damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host?
> > > 
> > > The research that shows computers analysing the electrical activity of 
> > > the brain can predict what decision a brain will come to many seconds 
> > > before it becomes a conscious experience is another area that make one 
> > > wonder what is going on, with the mind seemingly the horse behind the 
> > > cart being pulled along.
> > > 
> > > All this is leading to attempts to create functional computer analogical 
> > > models of the human brain, that can use input, and can be taught just 
> > > like us.
> > > 
> > > There is this this little robot in my home that vacuums the floor. It 
> > > maps out the space and vacuums around the edge and then vacuums 
> > > everything in between, avoiding obstacles along the way, and when the 
> > > power gets low, it returns directly to its battery charging station. Is 
> > > this the the rudiments of conscious behaviour? To do its job, the machine 
> > > has to learn something, though it is far far less complex than what we do.
> > > 
> > > If we say the ground of existence is consciousness, then this little 
> > > machine must have some kind of consciousness. On the other hand if we say 
> > > consciousness is some special kind of thing that is somehow inserted into 
> > > the world via us - human life - there is the problem of the mechanics of 
> > > how this would work. Is it a soul? How do souls hang out when they are 
> > > not associated with a body? Are there mechanics involved in getting a 
> > > soul to inhabit a body, and what are their characteristics? If there are 
> > > no characteristics, how could anything happen?
> > > 
> > > There are some scientists and philosophers who feel this nit picking 
> > > about consciousness might be asking the wrong questions, that is, the 
> > > questions that are being asked create the problem to be solved because 
> > > they are red herrings.
> > > 
> > > My view, at the moment, is being through having an internal structure 
> > > becomes conscious, that being is pre-conscious, and so the story goes 
> > > that being and consciousness are slightly different. But in this scheme 
> > > mind and brain are the same, as that is the internal structure. This POV 
> > > of course is really nonsense, because to say anything you have to make up 
> > > concepts, or adopt ones others make up, to manipulate and arrange in 
> > > relation to one another, to explain how you experience things. If you 
> > > experience everything in silence without a thought, no question arises, 
> > > it's all there, and that is that.
> > > 
> > > Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, 
> > > and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for 
> > > enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only 
> > > recently, give that as a requirement. And Mahahishi said, for example, 
> > > Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, 
> > > and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could 
> > > Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made 
> > > Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? If I were to speculate on why 
> > > he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted 
> > > people to keep at the practice, or he was just using it as a way to get 
> > > people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. And writings 
> > > in Maharishi's tradition (and other traditions as well) warn of following 
> > > the path of special powers, if you want enlightenment.
> > > 
> > > Using levitation as a requirement for enlightenment is a good way for 
> > > keeping people in place, for if that were true, no one in the absence of 
> > > a concrete, verifiable demonstration could ever displace the assumption 
> > > that Maharishi was in unity, and that they, in the absence of that demo, 
> > > could never aspire to usurp his position as a source of wisdom. That 
> > > said, if no one practicing these techniques ever really levitates, it 
> > > would mean the TM panoply of spiritual techniques is a demonstrable 
> > > failure for achieving the sought-for end.
> > > 
> > > Maharishi said that the TM-Sidhi programme would shorten the path to 
> > > enlightenment by many years. I do not know if that is true, but mental 
> > > techniques in this business are tools to achieve an end, not an end in 
> > > themselves. To achieve an end, sometimes you have to use certain tools, 
> > > and then at some point discard those tools, and pick up others. And at 
> > > the end, maybe tools are not needed, having accomplished their task.
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to