It is an amazing opportunity for a soul, for consciousness incarnate to have, 
to get a human lifetime. 
 Spirituality may not be someone’s ontological sense of experience but okay the 
global climate change science becomes this sobering spiritual reminder as we 
look at it in contrast to so much of rampant materialism and development of the 
modern world since 1870 that is so related to the atmosphere of global climate 
 It is an amazingly narrow atmospheric bandwidth that we human kind (& 
multicellular life) can exist in and live in on earth (basic 8th grade earth 
science). The adage for humanity then comes, “Make hay while the sun shines”, 
spirituality comes up in to mind. Now comes a time to do what you know to do, 
the ‘knowers of reality’,  to meditate, meditate, meditate. Not just some 
consciousness development but cultivate the spiritual soul, in the heart of a 
human incarnation in life. This then gets pointed to as an action in life, 
while you have a life. 

 Yes, what we are finding with this, with the global climate science, is that 
people seem to turn to their spiritual state as they face more certainly with 
their mortality. It is interesting to see how people come to spiritual matters 
as they come to understand the circumstance of such the magnitude of change 
portended by the science. 

Archonangel writes:

 Some doubt is necessary to make intelligent decisions. Not enough, you are a 
sucker, and too much and you lose out. I am well aware of what spiritual 
practice in my life has and has not done.

 Clearly meditating is not going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But would 
it result in people actually working on ways to remove it and to stop current 
pollution? People are working on this even without meditating.

 Spiritual groups are prone to "magical thinking" which is just another way of 
saying you have impractical daydreams.

 Your second sentence does not make any sense in terms of resolving climate 
change but relates to enlightenment, making hay while the sun shines. That is 
working to enlightenment, which is a different activity than fixing the climate.

 The evidence that enlightenment will bring about desired changes is not nearly 
so convincing as true believers would have us think. It might be better to work 
on the problem from a platform of spiritual ignorance.

 When you are ignorant spiritually, you fear things, and if you fear climate 
change, then maybe motivated to do something about it. If enlightened, climate 
change and the human turmoil surrounding it is just the next experience in a 
series of seemingly unending experiences in the field of experience 
(consciousness) and is just what is.

 Because the individual is surrendered, the solution is in the hands of nature, 
so the question becomes what is nature going to do? Five or six times, life has 
been seriously compromised on Earth. Planets seem plentiful around stars, yet 
stars explode and destroy planets. Who you gonna call? 

 You have control over action alone, never its fruits. That means even if you 
meditate, the result is not up to you. You do not even have control over your 
potential enlightenment, it is out of your hands.

 Do I have to be concerned about climate change? The devastating predictions, 
if true, will come after this body is dead and gone. And now we have people in 
government, who cannot comprehend the vast body of scientific research on 
climate change. How would you expect them to understand the piddling small 
studies about consciousness and its potential relationship with human behavior 
and intelligence?


 Some ‘in the mind’ intellectualizing may doubt the spiritual life for some 
lack of experience and may disrespect the effect of spiritual practice in life. 
But no, the question is not necessarily how could consciousness sequester 
carbon from the atmosphere given the face of the global climate change science 
but it quickly becomes what is someone, anyone, doing with a human lifetime 
while they have it as while resident in the human species for a moment while 
this species exists on earth? 
archonangel wrote :

 While you are proposing meditation as a solution to this, you have not 
specified just how meditation will result in the desired changes. A paradigm 
shift does not explain how that shift will induce the desired result.

 First, greenhouse gases will stay at current levels even if emissions are 
stopped, and no reasonable and practical way to remove the gases from the 
atmosphere has come forward.

 Enlightenment means that you know you, and everything else, is unbounded 
awareness, but that does not solve the problem. Meditation seems to have a 
rather poor record for producing enlightened human beings, almost everyone 
seems to be trucking along short of the goal.

 If the paradigm shift of enlightenment is so rare, how can you expect it to 
have an influence on climate? If you are ignorant and stupid, and you meditate, 
you stay ignorant and stupid for a long time even if you eventually succeed. 

 Smart people often do not even appreciate the value of a meditation system, so 
those that could be the most useful in solving the problem of climate change 
often will not even be interested in sitting around in silence or practicing 
other kinds of techniques.

 "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi went on a world tour in 1976 in which he inaugurated on 
all five continents the Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. Maharishi stated that 
the Age of Enlightenment was dependent upon nothing. He stated that it would 
occur whether we wanted it or didn't want it. He stated that 'Through the 
window of science' he could see that this was coming and that it was his 
privilege to be able to inaugurate its dawn in this manner."


 So why do we have runaway climate change? It has been almost four and a half 
decades since this inauguration, and the human race still seems as ignorant and 
stupid as ever, even more so. The paradigm shift seems to be in the wrong 

 On Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 2:53:24 PM GMT, 
[FairfieldLife] <> wrote:


   Clearly, as we are in the face now of runaway global climate change live 
with urgency. Jai Guru Dev, 


 . FW mail: 

 ..In such a science-based and spiritual community as ours, where we have had 
decades of frustrating experience in attempting to have other scientists 
appreciate the Paradigm changing research that was peer published in scientific 
journals about Transcendental Meditation and the TM Siddhi's Program, 
 it is our hope that our professors and scientists, and community are willing 
and open minded enough to accept the validity of another Paradigm changing 
concept, that paradigm change being the imminent unstoppable near-term 
annihilation of the global human habitat based on copious volumes of 
peer-reviewed published research.


 Paradigm Change: Runaway Global Climate

 Arctic Ice Melt and the Paradigms Shift..
 Interview with Conservation Biologist Dr. McPherson – Mankind Will Be Extinct 
in 8 Years or Less h



 FW: is a brief list of a few of the brilliant scientific minds of our time 
who totally agree with Dr. McPherson. I am sure some of these infamous 
scientists hold positions of credibility in your awareness. 

 Frank Fenner (June 2010) 
us/honour-roll/frank-fenner Malcolm Light 
(February 2012) Louise Leakey (July 2013) Richard Leakey (December 2013) Neil 
Dawes (August 2013 Sir Bob Geldorf (October 2013) Sam Carana (November 2013) 
John Feffer (April 2014) Noam Chomsky (June 2014) Larry Schwartz (July 2014) 
Ken Rose (July 2014) Jennifer Hynes (August 2014) Also
 Paul Beckwith - Professor in climatology; working on Ph.D. in abrupt climate 
change (Department of Geography; 
Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology) at University of Ottawa, 
 Biologist Paul R. Ehrlich - Professor of Population Studies of the Department 
of Biology of Stanford University and

 president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology

 Reply email: Governors and Sidhas who are not taking Super Radiance meditation 
as important because most of them have been ostracized and disillusioned by the 
movement. And many of those who haven’t are not looking terribly healthy or 

 With the Dome meditation attendance having fallen to be so low there is a 
serious questioning about the endurance of the Dome group meditation in 
Fairfield.  This Wedsnesday meeting becomes an important way post in the 
journey of the meditating community in Fairfield, Iowa.


 Subject. Communal Meeting this Weds. 
 Phoenix Rising Hall (Burlington and 3rd).
 7:30 PM,
 Maharishi Effect: Fact or Fiction?
 David Orme-Johnson, PhD, a leading long-time scientific researcher in the 
Maharishi Effect, invites you.

 FW email:
 I don't feel climate change is (necessarily) scary. It can be sufficiently 
controlled mainly (not only) by higher Super-Radiance (SR) attendance. 
 My concern has to do with Movement Governors and Sidhas who are not taking SR 
as important as it is, not prioritizing it as much as they could. There is more 
power in SR than in the people doing the climate change, gmo, vaccinations, 
pharmaceuticals, and electromag, etc. 
 Takes a lot of integration to see through.

 Archer Anangel wrote : 

 Yes there is some good science in meditation research, but seemingly there is 
not much.

 Perhaps 1% of the studies meet the gold standard. So out of 700 studies you 
have seven that are really decent.

 As the quality of the journal published in goes down, so does the quality of 
peer review. There are top-level scientists, mid-level scientists, and 
incompetent scientists. 

 So peer review is a check on quality only if you have good quality reviewers 
and statisticians to check the math. Really bad quality journals are pay for 
play, and you can get published even if the study is highly flawed, and the 
paper may not get any peer review.

 Meditation studies are a niche market within the field of consciousness 
studies, and are typically associated with various religious-based movements 
which are not the best mental platforms on which to implement impartial 

 Because most of the meditation research is bad, the baby is getting thrown out 
with the bath water.

 Climate science is much more advanced and there is wide consensus that climate 
change is a serious problem if you ignore politicians and political views. 
Science on meditation is far behind in getting the kind of consensus we have 
with climate change. It is the result of a bad approach, using science for 
marketing rather than knowledge.

 Promoting bad science in the name of meditation is like offering rotten 
vegetables in the market. If we like meditation and it benefits us, that does 
not give us the ability to evaluate the science. Subjective experience and 
emotion and the results of scientific experiments are often at odds.

 The best we can say now is meditation looks promising but more research is 
needed. It is when non-meditating scientists in droves come into the consensual 
fold that meditation is good for something, then is the point when the case can 
be made.

 This is not cynicism, this is the state of affairs. Meditation is great. It is 
for self-realization. If you are doing meditation for some other reason, you 
are already halfway to failure. Blame it on Western culture which does not have 
a good social underpinning for this kind of practice.


 Actually there is some lot of good science in it, meditation. Peer review. 
What? Like the global climate science, what, 'all the science is no good 
because some of the science is no good'? 

 That is what the cynicism offers. That one title said that way in that journal 
is certainly evil,’Throw it all out because some is bad, poorly done’. This and 
someone saying it sounds so rational and intellectual except, like tossing in a 
Trumpism, the underlying assertion is simply not entirely true, a fake news 
headline in itself. 


 Archer Angel writes,


 It is great that there is an attempt to do research on TM, but TM and other 
forms of meditation has a very poor record as far as quality scientific papers, 
as this summary in Scientific American indicates.
 Meditation is essentially for self-realization/enlightenment. Promoting it for 
heath and societal effects so far has not set the scientific world on fire. 

 It does seem to impress people who know little about the nature of scientific 
research and who seem unable to grasp the difference between a scientific study 
and what they want to believe.

 I think people benefit from meditation, but it is still not clear 
scientifically what it does.


 Compelling and Activating, 
 the evident science research comes now also as Clarion call in life policy to 
meditators to come together in meditation practice of transcendence in groups 
and change the catastrophic future of mankind into Heaven on Earth. Everyday 
 It is a fair descriptor, exponential. Graphs of so many of the variables 
within the long differential equation of rapid climate change show exponential 
growth, not just some linear changes since the 1870 baseline of the industrial 
age.. Coal burning, oil burning for internal combustion power, introduction of 
exotic greenhouse gases, melt off of polar ice caps, chopping down rainforests 
for palm oil production, 
 These are exponential peer review variable in a long equation that some would 
want to wait on more and do nothing..(claiming untested assumptions?) for more 
research? The person writing email also makes a good human observation in 
expression about the limited capacity of some folks to think their denial and 
inaction about this complex compounded problem in only linear ways.  I feel the 
conservation biologists are doing a good job of having a rational conversation 
about this now in heightening awareness of something very complex that 
evidently can overwhelm a lot of people’s thinking.  

 Archer Angel asks:
 Q: What is "exponential science"? I have never heard of it.


 Mail:   I have yet to find any scientist who understands exponential science, 
and who has an expanded consciousness capable of comprehending holistic events 
provide valid peer-reviewed scientific arguments contrary to McPherson's 


 email:  ..members of Mother Divine and to Members of Purusha and every person 
who was close to Maharishi (MMY) confided in us that  foretold that the 
impending phase-transition from Kali-Yuga into full blown Sat-Yuga would occur 
between 2020 and 2025 at which time MMY said that chaos would reign in the 
streets of the world like a living nightmare too horrible to describe.  Oddly 
enough, MMY's predictions seem to coincide in time-space with Dr. McPherson's 
which in my mind provides a valence of creedence to McPherson's predicted 


 reply email: Good luck to any serious, rational, science-based person trying 
to debunk the science now! There are more peer-reviewed journal hot links than 
one could click on and read through in a week!

 P.S. The 69 Self-Reinforcing Climate Feedback Loops all with hot links start 
about half-way down the essay.


 wrote :

 Maharishi would host/promote symposia to consider matters.  Inviting speakers 
and papers. Conversation. Consideration.

 Radical Change is happening Now: Rapid Climate Change
 This needs wider platform for consideration.
 Think of the papers that could be given, the titles..
 A Conference program, published.. Presentations, Presenters... 
 Radical Transcendentalism, Phenomenology and Rapid Climate Change.


 Iowa Farming and Carbon sequestration 

 Greenhouse Agriculture in a Hot House

 Public Policy and Transportation

 Earth Science

 Architecture and Global Warming. Designing for a warmer future. 

 Civil Order in a Changing World. 

 Global Economies and Meteorology, Changes in Iowa



 .a same kind of anti-science discredit they try to pull on meditation 


 FW: emails:  
 reply: Yes, we know that the majority of scientists disagree with Dr. 

 This does not surprise us since we know that precious few if any scientists 
ever accepted Maharishi's scientific work yet we all know the validity of that 
body of evidence. I encourage you to do some personal research by peer reviewed 
published scientific research before you accept the unsubstantiated conclusions 
of others less informed and certainly less validated in their opinions . 

 It is one thing to disagree with Dr. McPherson's hypothesis it is quite 
another to refute the peer reviewed and published scientific papers underlying 
his position.

Reply via email to