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  
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:





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? :

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.

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:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





SPONSORED LINKS
Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to