---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote :
Who ever said that Maharishi's consciousness was functioning independently from his brain? He did. The idea that consciousness is some lower order part of physics means that it is functionally different from the cells of the brain which are a higher order. You cannot tell from looking at an atom what it is part of, just what it is capable of being part of due to the amount of electrons it has and how they could form a molecular bond with other types of atoms. Ditto with subatomic particles. There are four types of quarks that make up all atomic nuclei and it's the alleged symmetry that makes them branch off from simpler form of matter that is where the grander unification in physics is hoped to lie. If consciousness occurs at that level - instead of at the electromagnetic level where it can be measured - then it effectively operates, and is generated from, beyond the brain. That's what John Hagelin also claims in his physics of yogic flying video. The idea of grand unification is interesting but even if it were proved (and no one ever has) I still don't see what it would have to do with consciousness apart from an apparent similarity in some of the language used between vedas and symmetry theories. But you phrased the question as functioning independently as opposed to the origin of consciousness, so you can't really believe in the unified field of consciousness either. Maharishi made it clear over and over again that the state of a person's physiology dictated what kind of consciousness they had. This I agree with, but I don't consider it a smart remark, it's so stark staringly obvious I wonder why he felt he had to say it in the first place, prolly to distance himself from the consequences of the physics above. As MMY's health declined towards the in, he had, as you pointed out, a diminished capacity to focus. and obviously became very forgetful, easily irritated, etc. That only means he wasn't perfectly enlightened by his definition. I believe the physics version of enlightenment to be a crock anyway because it's one of those ideas that explains everything while illuminating nothing. If any enlightened person had told us the weight of the Higgs boson before they discovered it I would believe them, but they didn't as they aren't interested in demonstrating how it works, they just tell us it does work for whatever their their own strange reasons are. They get away with making wild claims and never having to justify them. Claims that are apparently untestable and make no predictions, and claims of a universe that would function just as well if their theory wasn't there! Gurudev died from complications from food poisoning, so we can assume that HE wasn't "fully enlightened" according to MMY's definition, either. In fact, as I said, MMY's talk about how the consciousness of the world wouldn't support the most refined states of consciousness pretty much acknowledges (even if MMY wouldn't have admitted it to himself) that Gurudev couldn't have been perfectly enlightened. MMY was a human being. It's perfectly normal for human beings to hold contradictory beilefs simultaneously, even if they can't acknowledge the contradiction. You do realise he claims to get all his knowledge from this unified field? Kinda leaves the whole thing dead in the water AFAIC. And I agree with you BTW, it was all ancient beliefs repackaged with a bit of sciencey jargon and hopelessly unrealistic promises, it all means nothing and he proved it himself at the end. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : His health suffered, but this inflammatory nonsense from Curtis, is just that. M: You don't get it because you were never around the guy. His diminished capacity was a shock to me. Trying to label it inflammatory nonsense doesn't make the problem go away. It isn't his poor health I am commenting on, it is his mental health. The guy was whipped. His brain was whipped. If his consciousness was independent from his brain functioning this should not be the case. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : "What struck me because I have spent quite a bit of time around old people in the last few years and it seemed obvious that Maharishi was clearly suffering from the diminished capacity of age and very likely dementia. He was not well." Um, have you ever actually spent hours at a time with each resident of a nursing home, as in worked there, changing diapers, serving meals, doing bed checks? I have, and the thing that clearly distinguishes Maharishi's response, from that of someone suffering from dementia, is that Maharishi, despite some irritability, retains his focus. The same cannot be said of nursing home patients, with dementia. I don't think he retained any focus, it was awful to watch from my seat. He was rambling a lot in the last few years, and repeating himself. Not to mention making less sense than usual (I never thought he was much of a speaker) and his hands were shaking a lot too. The responses to this among my fellow workers at the academy were many and various. Denial that there was anything wrong was the principle one, beliefs that the amount of stress in the world has wearing him out (or similar attempts to fit it into the "knowledge" so that it wasn't a problem) came a close second. And a few were shocked but didn't say anything as any health problems would contradict everything he'd been telling everyone his whole life. I was angry, because I honestly thought that someone in his condition should not be allowed to appear like that in public without help or any sort of explanation, what were they thinking over in Vlodrop? I thought he should just be propped up in bed on a silk pillow with a big box of chocolates. Forced retirement and let the devotees run it on their own. Quite a stretch, from you, with a little cherry-picked "evidence" as garnish. Seems very similar to the sort of things you have been accusing Nabby of lately, doesn't it? I guess fairness only counts, when *you* are the target. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : I was struck by the posted interview between the Aussie and the Maharishi through closed circuit TV where Maharishi was unable to field a question about whether or not he could actually fly by going into "you kids get off of my lawn" mode. What struck me because I have spent quite a bit of time around old people in the last few years and it seemed obvious that Maharishi was clearly suffering from the diminished capacity of age and very likely dementia. He was not well. This observation only matters because at the heart of a lot of the premises in TM is that the state of consciousness in enlightenment transcends the functioning of the brain. This is the premise on which we have claims about witnessing deep sleep for example, and all the conjectural nonsense surrounding what happens after a "conscious" enlightened death. It is stated in different ways as a premise underneath many claims about how a person functions in enlightenment. We saw Maharishi, who in his salad days would have gigglingly swatted away such a direct question calling him on an outrageous claim, completely flummoxed and left with a broom in his hand chasing the local scamps out of his rutabaga patch. How can it be that "consciousness development" can have an effect on the person after their brain stops functioning and rots, when it couldn't even weather the storm of old age for the supposedly most developed person, Maharishi himself? Apparently consciousness development has the same impact as imagination development when it comes to being able to resist the ravages of age. Brain functioning trumps all imagination of it being otherwise. And the difference between Maharishi in old age and my own father can only be seen clearly in the zeros in their bank accounts.