--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:20 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > OK, I've listened to it, and I think you need to > > listen to it again. The fallacy Wilber is talking > > about doesn't have anything to do with TM's claims. > > > > Perhaps you also need to review what TM claims, > > for that matter. > > No that's all right, it's pretty clear to me. For example he says > in regard to the popular movie "What the Bleep" which prominently > features John Hagelin making some typical but rather wild (TMO > type) claims: > > "For example "What the Bleep Do we Know", I would say that more or > less every actual assertion they make about physical realities, > meaning "quantum realities" and their relationship to spiritual > reality is categorically FALSE."
Well, again, we'd need to know what Hagelin actually *said* in the film, and what Wilber means by "*more or less* every assertion." If that vague statement makes it all "pretty clear" to you, I'd say you're rather easily satisfied. > It's also interesting your statement "And yes, I think MMY uses > "unified field" as a synonym for Brahman." direcly contradicts > what Wilber says--Wilber emphatically states that the unified field > is NOT brahman. Hmm, I don't remember Wilber using the term "unified field" in that recording. But perhaps I missed it. If so, could you tell me approximately when he says it? In any case, according to Nagarjuna, it cannot be said either that Brahman *is* something or that Brahman *is not* something. Wilber is well aware of this, and I'm pretty sure MMY is too. That's why I suggested earlier that it isn't entirely clear MMY is using the term "unified field" (aka Brahman) in the way physicists do. So neither MMY nor Wilber is using the term "Brahman" the way Advaitins do (i.e., per Nagarjuna), at least in this context--which means that you'd really need to have them sit down head to head and hash things out before you could say with any certainty that they're contradicting each other (and maybe not even then). Bottom line, both Brahman and quantum mechanics are essentially paradoxical conceptually, so when you try to correlate two individuals' conceptual expressions about either--or worse, about both in relation to each other--you're in a very messy swamp. ------------------------ 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/
