Hi. It's about 30 years ago since we had the conversations that I referred to earlier. Too long to remember the nuances of our conversations now, and also I don't have the interest. So, I'll leave it to the Vedic scientists here to argue.
Anyway, one of Tony's views at that time (and also shared by some others, and that we discussed quite a bit) was that MMY's conceptualization of what MMY called TC was 'fuzzy'. Tony's view at that time was that people did not transcend in TM, they 'approached' transcending <-- finest relative and all that. If people were to transcend, he argued, that would be it. They would have experienced the Self and from then on would continue to be in that state - once you experienced it, that would be it. There were lots of aspects to what I've highlighted above, but that was the basic idea. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : I would love to hear what Tony said. It wouldn't surprise me if he had the same intellectual qualms Larry Domash did about how Maharishi played fast and loose with their disciplines. When I asked Larry personally about whether or not this was an analogy or was he saying that we experience the unified field in meditation he hemmed an hawed a bit. It was uncomfortable. It sort of came out that he was trying to keep it as an analogy but Maharishi was constantly crossing that line. Larry was very careful intellectually to draw a line because it is an absurd statement to identify a macro and micro process in nature. Then a few years later, Larry is out and the new golden boy Hagelin is in. What is his physicist-credibility- enhanced message? That the unified field and consciousness are identical at the level of our experience in meditation so we cam make all the claims about consciousness that physicists were theorizing about this level of life. What fascinates me is how the movement dances back and forth across this line as it suits them when challenged. This slipperiness is a keystone of how the movement jettisons intellectual integrity in the service of their PR campaign with a rightfully skeptical public. It is the essence of the SIMS shuffle. ---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote : 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. If you do feel like giving it a shot, I will throw in some thoughts of Tony Nader on the 'fundamentals of TM' from when we worked together in Switzerland. Yeah! Lets hear what they both had to say please! From: salyavin808 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species ---In [email protected], <jamesalan735@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : <snip> 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. He must have meant it literally, it pervades everything he said. In fact, it's the only thing he said! Look at the unified field charts, no hint of analogy there. But I originally assumed that it was, that the experience of deep meditation was a likeness of some fundamental physical process. Trouble is the two things aren't as similar as the TMO likes to paint them. Like all justifications allegedly drawn from scripture the evidence is cherry picked to support what it can but overall it doesn't bear much resemblance to reality. Another gripe would be that there were several perfect opportunities for an enlightened man - and apparently established in pure knowledge - to predict, before mainstream science had proved, the qualities of unknown subatomic particles. He never did of course, and he actually comes across as very unconvincing when talking about physics.There's no point having a radical theory if you aren't going to make predictions, from that alone I could argue that even if MMY said it was a description of reality it would be a belief rather than an experience. Luckily the physicists he met were all yes-men and obviously scared of contradicting him. But I did hear that Larry Domash said to Marshy that science didn't really know anything about unified fields but Marshy shouted him down saying that "We are the masters in this field!" So I would say MMY was a mystic who was serious about his beliefs. But he was mistaken about their value and accuracy. If you do feel like giving it a shot, I will throw in some thoughts of Tony Nader on the 'fundamentals of TM' from when we worked together in Switzerland. Do tell...
