On Jun 15, 2006, at 3:31 PM, sparaig wrote:

--- 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  


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  


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  


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:


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  


Have you read this? :



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.

Last I checked 10 minutes was still longer than 5. I didn't notice it personally till ten minutes, but he may have something with the five--or it's an individual thing. The important thing is to understand the essence of what he's saying.


He made no distinction between the average adult's concentrative ability and the adept's 

ability, save amount of time spent focusing.

Well that didn't seem to be the point he was making, so I doubt that's important.

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.

I didn't remember him saying that, but it's been a while.


To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi



Reply via email to