--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Claudiouk, > > Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the > Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy > and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, > qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say > that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the > Absolute. > > This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a "tell" about the > lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. > > To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all "in" the relative. > They're egoically spawned concepts. > > Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're > at it. > > To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the > Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've > seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, "you're no Jack > Kennedy." > > Anyone else want a piece of this?
I'll jump in, even though I haven't thought about this stuff in Physics metaphors since I left the TM movement (and haven't missed thinking that way). I suspect you have a good point about any Unified Field Theory that physicists could come up with having to do purely with the relative world. That is the only "field" they play in. As for the relative world not being Jack Kennedy, however, my experiences have con- vinced me that it *is* Jack Kennedy. Although the relative world is purely relative, it is *also* pure Absolute. That is the very essence of its mystery. But, at the same time, I have my doubts as to science's ability to ever "grok" that, much less include it in any of their theories of How Things Work. Things only "work" in the field of the relative, and thus that is the field they are playing in and trying to find some way to describe. That'll take them long enough and will be challenging enough. They should leave asking the Absolute to get up off the bench and join the game to mystics.
