Curtis, To answer your question, IMO Maharishi would have said that the unified field and physics were used as an analogy. He stated in the past that he wants to convey the ancient vedic wisdom in modern scientific terms.
Also, I don't believe most people outside of the TM circle would understand what MMY and John Hagelin were talking about. One has to learn some unique terms to understand what MMY was saying, such as the seven states of consciousness. For example, a person, from a different forum, asked me once to explain these states when I posted Hagelin's video presentation of the unified field. For brevity, I told the person to ask Hagelin himself. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <jr_esq@...> wrote : Curtis, It's obvious that Maharishi was trying resolve any of the differences from the traditional knowledge from the vedas with the current scientific understanding and discoveries up until the time of his death. I believe he was trying to show how the concept of the Brahman could create the universe in scientific terms. C: I never sensed this was sincere even when I was with him personally at physics conferences and saw him interact with physicists. His interactions were not of a serious nature and he showed almost zero interest in really understanding what the physicists were saying in any legitimate detail. He seemed satisfied to pick out a word that he could make a pun on, playing to his adoring and giggling TMers and derailing any attempt of the physicist to really talk physics. His understanding was at the level of the class clown who would pick out a word like "duty", and make a kaka joke to make the class laugh ala Bevis and Butthead. Here is a way to test his seriousness. Answer this question: Did Maharishi mean the connection between the unified field in physics to be an analogy, or was he equating the two? Try to make a case for your choice. If you give it a shot I will tell you what Larry Domash told me when I hit him with this question in my physics class with him and we can compare notes. J: The traditional vedic story describes the process allegorically. But it did not have the scientific details to describe the process. By the time he completed his studies in physics, MMY was fairly familiar with the developments and issues in physics and cosmology. C: If he was he never gave any indication of it when speaking with the physicists when I was around. J: IMO, he was trying to find a way how the absolute could be connected with the relative in scientific terms. Up to this day, scientists still don't understand how the universe was created. Scientists, like Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, proposed that the universe came from nothing. This is probably true when you're looking at things from a purely materialistic point of view in order to measure the smallest particles in the physical world. But their conclusions are foolish philosophically when one looks at them using logic and metaphysics. C: I think this is a misrepresentation of the role and functions of both logic and metaphysics. Logic does not generate truth, it preserves it. We have had this discussion before. You cannot assert a premise, take it through logical steps and claim anything is proven if the initial assumption has not been proven. Garbage in, garbage out is the rule of logic. Metaphysics has lost all epistemological credibility in modern philosophy. It is taught as a historical perspective on the era, like in classical times, when philosophers would make assumptions and them take them through transformations until they would forget it was all built on an unproven assumption. It has the epistemological solidity of any religious assertion. Metaphysics is one of the poorest understood branches of philosophy because of its dense language. But after you reduce Aristotle's metaphysics to its simplest elements, he is just asserting stuff about the way reality functions that is no different epistemologically for all its obtuse language than American Indians saying that humanity came from an ear of corn. J:So, MMY asked John Hagelin to write a theory that can be justified in scientific terms to show the connection between the absolute and the relative. Thus, Hagelin published his scientific theory of the unified field as the basis of creation. Essentially, he was saying that the unified field is made up of super strings, which are based on another theory that is considered to be the possible theory of everything. From the way Hagelin explained his theory, the junction between the absolute and the relative lies at the Planck scale which is a very small size measured at 10 to the power of minus 33 centimeters. This is the area in nature where matter bubbles up to the relative world from the unified field. Thus, IMO, Hagelin, through the guidance of MMY, has found a solution to bridge the gap between scientific methodologies and concepts relating to consciousness or the absolute. C: Maharishi thought that by tethering the Vedic poetry to physics terms he could make it seem as if his ideas were as serious and rigorous as physics. If you look at the Hindu nationalist movement you would see the precedent for this in Gandhi's time. This is using science as a marketing ploy for the unscientific public. Just look at what you wrote above. It is a mismash of scientific terms that neither you nor I have any real grasp of in proper context due to our lack of high level math and physics training. But schooled by Maharishi the sophist, I used to spout that kind of stuff with all the confidence in the world as if I understood any of these concepts in the way intended in physics and math. He cloned his glibness on to us and it made us feel as though we knew what we were talking about. Here is the concept that needs to be addressed: Consciousness in a result of a macro function of our brains. Even Maharishi concedes this. All the stuff Hagelin is talking about is on an entirely different level of creation, sub atomic. You can try to make a sloppy analogy using physics words like poetry, but there is absolutely zero evidence of any link beteen these levels in the human nervous system. Making these superficial connections that Maharishi was so fond of does absolutely nothing to support his unfounded claims. It just makes believers feel as if they are being more rigorous than just admitting that they believe this because they choose to, with the same epistemological as someone claiming to be "saved." State of least excitation SOUNDS a little like the quiet state of our minds. But they have absolutely nothing in common beyond this superficial connection of language as filtered by non physics trained people. The physicists at Maharishis conferences were very clear about this distinction, including some of his most trusted insiders. But you have to get them to talk about it off the record, beyond Maharishi ass kissing range. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : In Maharishi's version of the Hindu cosmology, all beings are dissolved with the dissolution of creation in the Mahapralaya at the end of the Yuga cycles. The only exception according to Maharishi is a person who has achieved,not just a celestial nervous system, but an absolute nervous system. Again according to Maharishi, only one person in history was said to have achieved this and he didn't mention who that was on the tape I heard. So we come to where Maharishi got this idea. It was NOT his experience since this is impossible according to his own teaching. It comes from something he read or was told by someone quoting the teaching of his tradition. In other words, Maharishi's assumptive statements about the nature of reality amount to no greater epistemological merit than the bubba in a revival church in Mississippi stating with the same assumptive enthusiasm: "Its in the good book Mister, and that is the word of God. Now you had better believe it as a fact, or get your pansy ass back to the big city and wait for God's wraith to destroy the world's second Gomorrah!" ---In [email protected], <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, Maharishi was saying that the universe is part of the creative intelligence of the unified field. Similarly, he does not say that the origin of species is completely random. Rather, the evolution of species is based on the creative intelligence of the unified field as well. That's why he said that those who are not familiar with the transcendental field will only base their theories on the physical and the measurable. IOW, these theories that are based on the waking state of consciousness are completely different from those who understand the transcendental and cosmic states of consciousness. Here's MMY's explanation: Maharishi on the Origin of Species (Part 7 of 9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hi8-lJ0XEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hi8-lJ0XEw Maharishi on the Origin of Species (Part 7 of 9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hi8-lJ0XEw Maharishi Mahesh Yogi speaks about "the Origin of Species," June 21, 1976 - Part of 7 of 9. Dr Brian Josephson comments later. Transcendental Meditation h... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hi8-lJ0XEw Preview by Yahoo ---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote : ---In [email protected], <jr_esq@...> wrote : Since we've been discussing the origin of the universe lately, it would be nice to review what Maharishi had to say about this subject. Essentially, he was saying that the view of the new atheists are limited in that their philosophy only addresses one phase of life, which is the waking state. It is does not address the values relating to sleeping, dreaming, transcendental consciousness, and the other higher levels of existence. As such, atheism does not satisfy nor bring bliss to the mind. But John, I'm both satisfied and a happy sort of chap and I achieve it without the need for a god. We are all the same, I'm tellin ya ;-) The thing you need to know is that evolution will explain all states of consciousness as being part of brain structure and not just the one you call "waking state". They are all neurophysiological states so they will all come under the same fundamental encompassing umbrella of chemical interactions. I used to be fascinated by what enlightenment meant for Darwinism but have reached a sort of peace with it and don't anymore think it's a worryingly complex thing to have lying latent in our brains as a kind of pre-adaptation without anything to be pre-adapted from. Back to the case at hand; Maharishi, of course, flatly refuses to answer the question about the origin of the universe and just gives the his usual sap bollocks answer that every question is an opportunity for him to warm over and drone on about for a few hours. It's just a shame everyone there is too polite to mention it. But then they wouldn't be sitting there if they weren't terminal, grovelling yes-men. Another wasted opportunity for a proper scientist to demolish the drivel of the reesh and challenge him to either explain what he knows or admit that he doesn't have an answer. The origin of the universe - like every other physical problem - will be explainable mathematically, somehow. Because the universe is made of small bits of stuff, being in a different state of consciousness isn't going to change the math that explains things. If his answer actually provided an explanation he could have given it there and then but he didn't. I've mentioned it before but the enlightened could have saved everyone a lot of bother - or at least made an interesting prediction - by telling everyone at CERN what the electron weight of the Higg's boson was. Not even John Hagelin knew what it was going to be. That would have been a practical demonstration of the power of enlightenment but they blew it. Origin of the Universe (Part 1 of 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg Origin of the Universe (Part 1 of 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg Physicist, Ilya Prigogine discuss's the origin or the universe with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Prigogine describes how it is difficult to explain the origin of t... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBXn_mr2Zg Preview by Yahoo
