It is nice when these things happens - in a very natural way. I saw a perfect yantra in the gap between waking and dreaming state, with all the deities. I have been looking for it since in all places that sells yantras, but I have not found it yet. Ingegerd
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > I have had also similar experiences of feeling somebody's presence > very near me. Earlier I could also sometimes see their physical form > as a light body. > > I have become a grandmother a few months ago. My son and his wife kept > the boy's name secret before the christening. I had not a clue, what > his name will be. The day before the christening my mother called me > in the morning and told me that she had seen a very vivid dream, that > felt totally real. In the dream the boy had already a name and she > told me what it was. The dream felt so real that my mother was quite > certain it will be his name. > The next day in the church, when I heard that the name my mother > mentioned actually was given to the boy, I first felt stunned and then > thrilled. > Many people present tried to explain this as a coincidence or a good > guess. > I later calculated the likelihood of guessing right and it was not > very big. > > I think that these kind of occurrences are much more common that the > likelihood of coincidences would permit. > > Irmeli > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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/
