Sorry sinhlnx, I'm finding it harder to follow your points than Hagelin's! And you're not even using any quantum maths!
"strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination" - MMY consistently identifies the Unified Field with the ABSOLUTE, the origin of the dualistic Relative. "holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism" - if you mean things like "smaller than the smallest = greater than the greatest"; or "as above, so below"; or "as is the atom, so is the universe" etc then such holographic parallels predate Buddhism.. "pure Consciousness is not a field" - Hagelin says it's the field of all fields; a field effect of consciousness, as in the Maharishi Effect, means that changes in the coherence and quality of indivindual consciousness has an effect on others over and above one- to-one interactions through action or communication. I think this is not anti-Buddhist. The Natural Mind, Buddha Nature, transcends individuality.. enlivening the Buddha Nature in oneself naturally creates positive effects in others - a field effect. "there's no direct connection between "Being" and quantum mechanics" - Hagelin talks of superstring theory. Transcending the individual mind and the "quantum + gravity unification" brings us to the Unified Field Consciousness - the Being or pure consciousness/existence of everything.. So don't really see where the discrepancy between MMY and Buddhism lies. I personally see myself as more Buddhist than anything else.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- thanks for your outstanding points, most valid indeed!. > OTOH, on occasion, metaphorical analogues to math/physics principles > can be useful in helping us find parallels to certain deep, subtle > properties of relative existence. The downside is the risk of > logical errors such as "the appeal to authorities", and geekspeak, or > jargon. > Since the TMO has been known to use some (or all) of such logical > fallacies, we become naturally suspicious, and rightly so!. > Such mathematical principles as the E8 Lie group point to (contrary > to MMY and Hagelin) strictly relative principles, akin to the > Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination; > and ultimately, the holographic nature of the universe: a concept > pioneered in Buddhism - more so than in Hinduism. (wiki - the > Buddhism of Tien Tai). > At any rate, no, "pure Consciousness" - as pointed out by the > quantum pioneers themselves (since some of them apparently had an > intuitive knowledge of "Being-In-Itself", especially Schroedinger); > is not a subject of modern scientific inquiry (unless** - as pointed > out by Jim Flanagan, we restrict the inquiry by safe qualifications > such as "this is my experience:......etc.". Then, such studies can > be "scientific" as long as one doesn't tweak the statistics (as in > the MUM studies). > Thus, pure Consciousness is not a "field". One can make parallels > to certain facets of relative existence (explored and explained more > by the Buddhists than Hindus) - particularly the nature of Dharma, > karma, and reincarnation; and the various elements of cause and > effects. > As mentioned before, such relative concepts would be > interconnectedness, dependent origination, and the holographic nature > of existence. > Such concepts may "point to" THAT, but as several contributors have > already pointed out, there's no direct connection between "Being" and > quantum mechanics. > I might add that the concept of a "Singularity" has a ringing > appeal to what me might experience as That; but again, a Singularity > has to be something relative in order for scientists to investigate > it, according to the commonly accepted notions of scientific inquiry. > (that does not of course include private revelations). > BTW private revelations were in the domain of the Gnostics, as > opposed to "appeal by Authorities" ; such as the local Bishop, Pope, > etc. > Naturally, Gnosticism was a very dangerous, heretical approach; > since if one can discover innate wisdom through interior inquiry, who > needs the Pope? > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I > > > > > hear the term "super string" or anything of that ilk > > > > > associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it > > > > > can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who > > > > > actually understand it and can facilitate deeper > > > > > understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but > > > > > for us lay folk it is mind numbing..... > > > > > > > > That's its true purpose. :-) > > > > > > the invoking the "too quick on the trigger response" part or > > > the "mind numbing" part? > > > > The "mind numbing" part. It's a sales technique > > designed to make the buyer think, "Ooooo, these > > people are smarter than I am. I can tell because > > they use big words that I don't understand. There- > > fore they know what they're talking about." And > > so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to > > buy the inferior products of an inferior company > > because they have bought into the company's use > > of buzzwords. > > > > It's the same model used to sell hardware and > > software. We in the industry call it "geekspeak." > > The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw > > into the blurbs about your product, the more of > > the product you are likely to sell. > > > > Whatever the intellectual "can I connect these > > possibly unrelated dots in my mind" value that > > hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have > > for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as > > geekspeak. > > > > One of the trends that one finds in the study of > > *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the > > traditions that made the biggest impact on > > society, and in some cases have lasted the longest > > in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* > > geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. > > > > Christ taught in the common language, using anal- > > ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to > > the common man. As opposed to the language and > > the teachings used by the prevailing religions of > > his time. He developed a following. > > > > One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church > > exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in > > the common language*, not in Latin...and not in > > geekspeak. > > > > Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- > > falootin' language and rituals of the existing > > religions, and (again) taught in clear, non-geek- > > speak language to the common people, about things > > that they had to deal with...everyday stuff, like > > suffering and how to get past it. > > > > In the beginning, the TM movement taught in clear, > > non-geekspeak language about the benefits of medi- > > tation. And it developed quite a following. Over > > the years it abandoned that approach and began to > > rely more and more on geekspeak, which in my opinion > > was more designed to pander to and hold onto the > > existing followers than to attract new ones. The > > result? As some have pointed out here, more existing > > TMers die every year than new TMers are created. > > > > I'm not convinced that geekspeak is a good thing > > when it comes to spiritual teaching. Yeah, it may > > appeal to the intellect, which in turn appeals to > > the ego and the small self. But does it really help > > your life in any way to hear about superstrings and > > such stuff? Many people seem to *want* their minds > > numbed by high-falootin' language and concepts > > that they don't really understand. They *like* > > that stuff. Me, I'm drawn to those teachers and > > traditions that just speak clearly and without > > pretension about everyday stuff and offer clear, > > non-geekspeak techniques that offer more effective > > ways to deal with that everyday stuff. But that's > > probably just me... > > >
