I have had the same experience many times - and without thinking what it is, I have used it as a technique for many years. If I really want something seriously, a job, need for money, whatever, I wish and forget - and the wishes is fullfilled in some way or another. I do not know the mechanisms, but it works. One of the strangest things that happened to me, was a winter day, when I walked in the city, and I realized that a "yogi" was walking with me, barefooted and without much cloths. He was very powerfull, and filled me with a lot of energy. Then he disappeared. When I came home, I found the letter from the TMOs lawyer threathen to sue me. If I should describe the Yogi. he looked like Tat Wala Baba - maybe Hanuman. I do not know. Ingegerd
--- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have experienced many odd coincidences, that could be also explained > as just coincidences. I however think I have too many of them and many > of those really don't feel like a coincidences, even if some I see as > such. > > For a few years ago I was participating a vedic recitation weekend > course by the TMO in Estonia in Tallinn. When I was walking on > Saturday morning from my hotel to the course place, I realized I don't > have a notebook and on TM courses you don't have those available for > the course participants. About five minutes later I saw in front of my > feet on the pavement a notebook, picked it up and saw that it was > unused and clean, and took it. > > Years ago, when my sons where 2 and 3 years old, and we lived in an > apartment, a thought appeared that it would be good for the boys to > spend the summer in the countryside. However at that time we had not > enough money to hire a summer cottage. And so I dropped the idea. A > week after that my husband's colleague at work asked him if he wants > to hire a very cheap, but nice cottage, which he did. My husband did > not know of my thoughts about a summer place. And we spent there many > summers. It was the only time someone has offered us a summer cottage > and the only occasion, we where in need of one. > > What the physical reality mechanism behind these occurrences is I > don't know. > > Irmeli > > --- In [email protected], "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 > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], 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/
