I explained that as well. Pay attention at the back!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic
spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our
heads where all this stuff is united as a convincing picture is a bit of a
clever trick. But we never see X-rays or hear ultrasonic so in what way could
it be another world? There's no extra meaningful knowledge to be gained from
our senses at all.
I think what we have is a breakdown in explaining mystical states, they don't
mean anything really, they don't teach you anything you don't already know, you
just get a feeling that they might if they become fully realised. For all his
bluster Marshy never told us what the cosmological constant was or how the
alleged unified field fits in with the standard model of particle physics.
There was nothing new other than the promise that we could have these riches
too. In fact, he only ever impressed me a few times with his day-to-day wisdom.
His supreme wisdom is just rehashed Hindooism, hardly cognised as claimed, if
it ever was.
But his description of enlightenment is inspiring as that's how it feels to
experience it, but there is no layered structure to consciousness like you see
on TM posters or inside the brain. It's all a metaphor, a clever way of
explaining how a breakdown (or up) of our usual deceptive model of how the
world looks when you jigger about with it.
Why you get the duality of the silent and the active at the same time seems
rather likely to be due to Lawson's hypothalamus feedback idea, that gives us
the fourth state of consciousness - characterised by stillness, becoming
temporarily crosswired to the normal waking state apparatus of manufacturing
consciousness. If that is indeed how transcendence is explained, and it will be
something like that. There isn't anywhere else for another world to be as far
as anyone knows, or anyway we could get information about it, as far as anyone
knows.
Wouldn't it be funny if TM researchers undermined the whole philosophical
fabric of their own beliefs. That's be true science!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it?
Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense
of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see
one...?
