To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest -- that is, observable and thus distinct from the Absolute -- just exactly as a mirror is functional but "invisible" to human eyes that are tuned to see only to the mirror's reflections.
That quality of having all qualities nested in "virtual" potential, and its quality of objectivity, these are what I think the Unified Field is to today's physicists -- they make statements like "an infinite amount of energy can come from any cubic centimeter of virtual field." Sounds like Brahma to me. Now, what kicks Being off balance and into full manifestation? Can't be nothing but the Absolute, right? But the Absolute has no feet! And in fact the Absolute does NOT have the quality of "having no feet" too! See? Gonna come out stupid sounding whenever one talks about the Absolute. That's the mystery -- there's no connection between the Absolute and Being and this is a powerful deep truth, but as Turq just reminded us, the Relative is nothing but the Absolute. Hence the paradox -- Godel loved it. I'm waiting for a physicist to say, "Hey, is it just me, or did I just see the universe blink off for a scintillation's halflife?" Then, I'll say they're sniffing around the Absolute's hydrant. In a dream, everything's real only as long as the dreamer is there. Of all the statements one can make about the Absolute, that pausing of bliss, that silence of deep dreamless sleep is about as truthful as any lie a brain can tell. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "you're no Jack Kennedy" - not sure what THAT means.. no I'm Claudio. > I'm sure we all have our own views on these matters and how far our > definitions are fuzzy, and how bad that is in fact, is all rather > fuzzy to me. I think language can only point the way.. > > re definitions for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the > Unified Field - I don't find MMY's usage of these terms, as in his > Gita or more recent pronouncements, problematic. They refer to a > transcendental realm of awareness, beyong thoughts or concepts or > even "objective" reality, which is universal, oneness, non-duality, > the fundamental reality of Being, Existence, Reality.. as opposed to > duality, individuality, physical reality characterised by locality, > isolation etc. Can't say I'm philosophically minded so not that > bothered with fuzzy thinking. > > re " Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute" - > suggests you yourselk have an understanding of the difference between > Absolute and Relative. The Unifield Field is the theoretical Non- > Duality of Nature, the Unity underlying the Diversity of the > Relative. Hence I don't find it that difficult to equate it with the > Absolute. Yes we are dealing with concepts that have arisen from > different epochs and philosophical traditions but if one takes a > broader view one can see the equivalences and idsentities rather than > get bogged down obsessively with finer details that end up distorting > the reality. > > But hey, that's just my opinion and understanding. So what > conclusions are you making from your premises as expressed in your > posting (apart from questioning mine, I mean)? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> 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? > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> > wrote: > > > > > > 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" <sinhlnx@> 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
