--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A common story told to us on TM-courses - was about the meditator > that wished for an apple and suddenly the apple was in his hand. I > have never experienced such a thing, but I think from my mind it > is possible from the consciousness to create material things. > Deepak Chopra has explained it in a rational way. Everything > starts with a vibration who creates a sound which creates a form. > Ingegerd
I think that this *is* an example of creating things with consciousness, but not quite in the same way as Ingegerd possibly means. Someone tells some gullible people who are so spaced out from rounding that they'd believe *anything* a story, and voila! -- a belief is created. :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I always thought that the connection that the TMO made to quantum > > physics was always just a cute little analogy and nothing more. > > Never took it seriously and I always hoped no one else would > either. > > > > Beyond being an analogy and using the platform of quantum > mechanics > > to serve as an illustration for how consicousness works, I never > saw > > an actual connection between the working of the mind and > > consciousness and physics. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > File Under: TMO lies and marketing ploys; Boomeritis Hinduism; > > Pseudo- > > > advaita > > > > > > Answers from biologist and physicist Ken Wilber. > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/cmay6 > > > > > > The first question has to do directly with the relation of > modern > > > quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove > > God, > > > does the Tao find proof in quantum realities? > > > > > > Answer: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the > > last > > > thirty years than has come from quantum physics...." > > > > > > Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have > > dominated > > > the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics > and > > > mysticism. > > > > > > #1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike > > Newtonian > > > physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving > > at > > > slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in > > which > > > a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's > > the > > > funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the > > measurement > > > that the electron actually does "show up." Certain writers and > > > theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality > actually > > > creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of > > this > > > idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in > > which > > > we "qwaff" reality into existence. > > > > > > Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for > > the > > > former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the > original > > > writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum > and > > > relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the > > > relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each > one > > of > > > them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual > > realities > > > in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because > of > > > physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of > > their > > > discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found > > themselves > > > face to face with those realities that physics categorically > > could > > > not explain. > > > > > > Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that > > the > > > act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at > > the > > > quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did > > not > > > believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief > > requires > > > the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or "boomeritis," > of > > the > > > post-modern ego, and Ken goes into the possible psychology > behind > > all > > > of that. > > > > > > #2: Quantum vacuum potentials are not unmanifest Spirit. The > > > immediate problem with the notion that certain "unmanifest" or > > > "vacuum" quantum realities give rise to the manifest world, and > > that > > > the quantum vacuum is Spirit, is that it immediately presupposes > > a > > > radically divided Spirit or Ultimate. There is Spirit "over > > here," > > > manifestation "over there," and it's only through these quantum > > > vacuum potentials that Spirit actualizes manifestation—with > > Spirit > > > set apart from manifestation. > > > > > > As the great contemplative traditions agree, true nondual Spirit > > is > > > the suchness, emptiness, or isness of all manifestation, and as > > such > > > leaves everything exactly where it finds it. Nondual Spirit is > no > > > more set apart from manifestation than the wetness of the ocean > > is > > > set apart from waves. Wetness is the suchness or isness of all > > waves. > > > By identifying Spirit with quantum potential, you are actually > > > qualifying the Unqualifiable, giving it characteristics—"and > > right > > > there," Ken says, "things start to go horribly wrong, and they > > never > > > recover. These folks are trying to give characteristics to > > Emptiness. > > > They therefore make it dualistic. And then things get worse > from > > > there...." > > > > > > #3: Just because you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean > > you're > > > enlightened. Physics is an explicitly 3rd-person approach to > > reality, > > > whereas meditative, contemplative, or mystical disciplines are > > > explicitly 1st-person approaches to reality. Neither perspective > > is > > > more real than the other, but each perspective does disclose > > > different truths, and you cannot use the truth disclosed in one > > > domain to "colonize" another. The study of physics, as a 3rd- > > person > > > discipline, will not get you enlightenment; and meditation, as a > > 1st- > > > person discipline, will not disclose the location of an asteroid > > (or > > > an electron). The "content" of enlightenment is the realization > > of > > > that which is timeless, formless, and eternally unchanging. The > > > content of physics is the understanding of the movement of form > > > within time, i.e. that which is constantly changing. And if you > > hook > > > Buddha's enlightenment to a theory of physics that gets > disproved > > > tomorrow, does that mean Buddha loses his enlightenment? > > > > > > Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum > > > realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which > > may > > > be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity > that > > so > > > many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level. Of > > course, > > > it remains to be seen exactly what further research does and > does > > not > > > support. > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
