"Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest" - MMY, frequently talked about Being = the Absolute and, for instance in the Gita, how the Gunas are the first "Relative" manifestation from this Absolute/Being.
"the Relative is nothing but the Absolute" is just because the manifestation is just another point of view of the Absolute - as Hagelin tried to show, even in the Unified Fileld equations, one can discern the non-duality underlying diversity. And in higher states of consciousness first the distinction betweeen Absolute and Relative is established, then the non-duality of reality. All rather theoretical stuff for me anyway - I'll wait and see what personal experience brings - so far nothing remotely about Gunas or Being or Absolutes.. unfortunately. But going back to your formulation, if the Absolute is NOT Being, and Being is just a finer value of the Relative, and there is a mystery about how the Absolute becomes Relative, what consequences/implications you see in that then regarding meditation, knowledge, enlightenment etc? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <claudiouk@> 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
