--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Good points. This one interested me the most: > >>>>> > >>>>> "rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely > >>>>> beyond science." > >>>>> > >>>>> It is beyond the scientific method in its focus and range, but I > >>>>> think Sam Harris would claim that when it talks about how the > >>>>> world "is" mysticism enters the field where logic does apply. You > >>>>> mentioned that Schroedinger is a physicist, a world class one at > >>>>> that from what I understand. But Physics is a field driven by > >>>>> math > >>>>> skills and I don't think that gives him a leg up on this kind of > >>>>> discussion over say...you or Chopra. It is all speculation about > >>>>> life. He leaves his credibility in his own field far behind on > >>>>> these > >>>>> topics. Because you have gained something from it, I will spend > >>>>> some more time thinking about it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Curtis you might enjoy the following brief talk with Ken Wilber > >>>> where > >>>> he answers the question "does quantum physics prove god?" where he > >>>> rather elegantly explains that the quantum state is not unmanifest > >>>> spirit/brahman/the tao/PC. Interesting talk. Not so interesting for > >>>> the TM quantum mysticism, but rather embarrassing. I think by > >>>> extension you could conclude that a mysticism based on Quantum > >>>> physics is pretty bad mysticism... > >>>> > >>>> It's on page two: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> And how would he know? > >>> > >> > >> Uh, he's a physicist and a mystic? > >> > >> > > > > He said he studied QM in college for his grad degree in biology and > > "mystic" is a rather > > broad term. I wouldn't term him a mystic in the TM sense of being > > enlightened. Not when > > he talks about the need to be able to focus on objects for 5 > > minutes non-stop in order to > > progress to higher practices... > > Yeah, I agree, it wasn't until I could transcend for 10 minutes that > I was able to progress to higher practices--really I had no choice at > that point. > > If you wanted to call Ken anything it could be an Integral Dzogchen > yogin. > > Have you read this? : > > http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php? > option=com_content&task=view&id=2288 >
That's not what he said in the talk you referenced earlier. He said the average adult can't focus on something for more than 50 seconds or so, but that in order to go to more advanced techniques, one needed to be able to focus on a single thing for at 5 minutes. He made no distinction between the average adult's concentrative ability and the adept's ability, save amount of time spent focusing. And it has been my experience that witnessing sleep is the most common form of witnessing outside of meditation, not the least common, as he reports. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
