<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >From: "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >--- In [email protected], "Richard Hughes"
> ><richardhughes103@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "sparaig" <sparaig@>
> > > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > >To: [email protected]
> > > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sat Yuga Fairy Tale? was: Forcing
> >people to
> > > >meditate, wa
> > > >Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:48:05 -0000
> > > >
> > > >--- In [email protected], "Richard Hughes"
> > > ><richardhughes103@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >How can consciousness NOT be the unified field?
> > >
> > > By being nothing more than a product of our brains and
disappearing
> > > when we die.
> > >
> > > I always thought the concept of transcending from the relative
> > > to "oneness" was simply analogous to the way the physical
> > > universe is structured. This seems likely as consciousness
> > > being the UF implies that consciousness was here first, which
> > > seems to contradict everything else we know about the universe.
> >
> >What does it contradict that we know about the universe?
> >
> >According to the UF notion, the material universe
> >(along with time and space) manifested *from*
> >consciousness (which is said to be nonlocal and
> >timeless). In other words--as I understand it--
> >the UF notion encompasses everything we know about
> >the universe; further, there is nothing we *could*
> >know about the universe that would not already be
> >encompassed by the UF notion.
> >
> So why call the UF consciousness if it's no different from standard
> scientific models about reality? it confuses the issue with our own
> awareness (To me anyway)
>
> I always understood the vedic position to be that the UF is the
> mind of god and that it guides the creation of the universe. This
> how it's taught or that's the implication I get from reading Tony
> Naders book of "discoveries" about the ved, I could write an essay
> about the anthropomorphism there. And that, if I've understood it,
> does contradict what we know as the evolution of life is a blind
> process, and the universe didn't need any help getting from the big
> bang to here.
It's entirely possible to believe in an all-knowing, all-
powerful God who planned everything and also accept
evolution; such a God would be entirely capable of designing
a "blind process" that would result in the creation and
evolution of life without His/Her/Its tinkering once it was
launched.
But it would still look to us exactly as if the process
emerged and operated entirely on its own; it wouldn't
contradict anything we know about the evolution of life.
> Perhaps we try too hard to integrate ancient beliefs with modern
> understanding
I think we try to interpret ancient beliefs too literally
sometimes. The ancients had to use metaphor for their
intuitive insights because they didn't have our scientific
terminology. But the underlying concepts may well be
very similar.
, mans existence wasn't pre-ordained and we are certainly not
> the ultimate statement of creation.
>
> Encompassed by UF yes, explained no. One of the things that annoys
> me about people you meet in TM circles is they always pass off
> every statement or new discovery about the universe etc.with a
> breezy "oh it's all consciousness" as though that explains anything
> at all. There are still very many mysteries, including the actual
> nature of fundamental reality, just try telling a non-movement
> phycisist that consciousness is the UF and they say "well yes
> maybe....but it's impossible to actually prove it" so it's not a
> done deal.
It's theoretically possible to prove it, according to
what MMY teaches, or at least to disprove the notion
that there's nothing beyond standard materialism. Real
levitation, for example, would demonstrate unequivocally
that the materialist model is not the whole story.
Orthodox science still doesn't have a clue about the
nature of ordinary human consciousness; that's the
biggest mystery of all. I doubt it will ever be
cracked by orthodox science unless it figures out
some way to quantify subjective experience and
incorporate it into scientific theory--which is pretty
much a contradiction in terms.
I think a lot of TMers (and other New Age types) don't
grasp much of the "hard problem" of consciousness and
its epistemological ramifications.
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
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
