[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Remember that old bone we were chewing on? Judy: The contradiction is that according to science, your constraints, your sense of exercising an act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment of all that are all *determined*, because the behavior of the elementary particles that make your mind, as well as your body, function operates via mathematically predictable statistical probabilities; there are no surprises. Me: Maybe this is the heart of our different ways of seeing it. I don't understand how elementary particles make up my mind? Most neuo-scientists view a separate mind body making the distinction like Descarte, don't they? I think Wilber makes this point that these sub atomic particles have nothing to do with conscioudness, they are physical. But is does clarify my own assumptions about the mind body connections. I follow the primacy of matter point of view. Consciousness emerges from the functioning of the parts. I don't think that matter acting strangely at sub-atomic leves changes this split. Judy: Theoretically, if we could compute the billions of bits of behavior of those gazillions of elementary particles, we could predict precisely the chances of your choosing to exercise versus choosing to watch football on TV. Me: Yes, this is our difference. The particles can't determine the content of thought for me. The emergent awareness of I think therefore I am level is the beautiful mystery of life. Our choices are not pre-determined, but they are often predicable. Judy: There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clinical evidence, as it happens, for free will, whereas there's quite a bit *against* it. I was just reading an article in the Times today about how more and more personality traits are being traced to genetics, for example. And Lawson mentioned the famous (infamous?) studies that appear to show that if you're asked to raise your arm, say, the motor neurons that govern the movement of the arm muscles are activated *before* the area of the brain in which decisions to act are made. (I think I have that straight; Lawson will correct me if I don't, I'm sure!) The quote just states free will as a given of our experience. These studies are fascinating. Personally I feel that free will must be practiced. To act in a new original way is very difficult, but when achieved, it is wonderful. I am ready to take my experience of free will as a given. I think we will find more an more influences on us from genetics etc, which only makes it more heroic when we do will our lives in a new direction. Let alone the daily choices that build our future in one direction or other! Nowhere is that more obvious than in personal health. (This is out the sequence of your post) Judy: It's experiencing the *free will* of the group 'I' and interpreting it as its own free will. Me: This point of view seems to reduce what I love most about being alive and turns it into an illusion. If it is true, the evidence will have to rub my nose in it. I certainly would not jump to this conclusion anymore than I would adopt the Matrix movie series POV by choice. They are both depressing to me. I don't really understand how the group free will can want to express itself through me getting a drink of water. It seems far fetched. Since neuro science describes the link between our mind an nervous system, it seems like we are missing a nervous system here to support the group I. Is it a mind without a body? I was going to skip exercise today but now I will be damned if I will! Oh wait, that was predictable as a counter to this post, so I am going to watch the World Cup...no ..., I will put my Nordic Track in front of the tube and do both! That is what I usually do, what a slave I am! I'm pretty sure that I need to read his whole essay at this point. There is too much not clear in his quote. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Your favorite religious organization? Make a donation at Network for Good. http://us.click.yahoo.com/EOl1HB/LPaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember that old bone we were chewing on? Indeed I do. I just got back home, and almost the first thing I did was haul out Quantum Questions to reread the entire The 'I' That Is God essay from which I took the quote. Wilber includes three other Schroedinger essays as well, which I also reread. The upshot is that I find myself hugely embarrassed by how much grander his thinking is than I had been able to express--or even recall--when I was posting about the quote. Even now with the essays in front of me, I'm just barely able to follow his train of thought. At this point I don't think it makes any sense for me to try to encapsulate it all here; I surely wouldn't succeed in doing it justice. I'm pretty confident, though, that you would find the essays--and the rest of the book, particularly including Wilber's introductory essay--absorbing. Not necessarily *convincing*, but I suspect dealing with the concepts in relation to your own thinking would significantly expand the reach and precision of your philosophy, even if you ultimately came to entirely different conclusions. Here's Amazon's page for the book: http://tinyurl.com/kycgg Note that in the Editorial Reviews section, the Book Description--which is part of the flap copy-- states the point of the book incorrectly: Brings together for the 1st time the mystical writings of the world's great physicists - all of whom express a deep belief that physics and mysticism are somehow fraternal twins. In fact, this is precisely the *opposite* of the point of the book, which is that physics and mysticism are most emphatically NOT fraternal twins. Wilber must have had a fit. I'd guess he'd have insisted it be revised for subsequent editions of the book, so if you get hold of a more recent edition, it may say something different, and hopefully more accurate. Anyway...I'll just respond to a few of your points here, and if you're able to read the book, perhaps we can continue later. Judy: The contradiction is that according to science, your constraints, your sense of exercising an act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment of all that are all *determined*, because the behavior of the elementary particles that make your mind, as well as your body, function operates via mathematically predictable statistical probabilities; there are no surprises. Me: Maybe this is the heart of our different ways of seeing it. I don't understand how elementary particles make up my mind? Most neuo-scientists view a separate mind body making the distinction like Descarte, don't they? Yes and no. In their work they certainly have to deal with the mind *as if* it were separate, simply because we don't understand the nature of the relationship between body and mind. That is an unsettled issue, so as far as the science is concerned, they have to study what the mind *does*, the manifestations of mind, rather than what mind *is*, if you see the distinction I'm making. Or to put it another way, what they study would be the same no matter which were the case. I think Wilber makes this point that these sub atomic particles have nothing to do with conscioudness, they are physical. But is does clarify my own assumptions about the mind body connections. I follow the primacy of matter point of view. Consciousness emerges from the functioning of the parts. I don't think that matter acting strangely at sub-atomic leves changes this split. Well, we don't know. Which side you take is a matter of philosophy, not of science. There's no more proof that consciousness is emergent from matter than that matter is emergent from consciousness. Either way, here magic happens. Schroedinger isn't claiming per se that science demonstrates that there is no free will; he's simply highlighting the fact that science cannot tell us whether free will exists, nor where our sense of free will comes from, and then suggesting a possible metaphysical solution that has the advantage of not contradicting either science or our sense of free will. snip Judy: It's experiencing the *free will* of the group 'I' and interpreting it as its own free will. Me: This point of view seems to reduce what I love most about being alive and turns it into an illusion. The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! I did remember correctly, by the way, that Schroedinger had been delving into the Vedic literature, specifically the Upanishads; and I was correct in equating the essay's title, The 'I' That Is God, with the Upanishadic dictum Atman is Brahman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A great example of this was when he came here, sometime in the late 70s I think, he apparently made the offhand remark that someone's sari was really nice, or something to that effect. Next time he came--most of the women were wearing saris, and he couldn't believe it and wanted to know why. Sal I heard the same thing. As nice a saris are, when I started seeing a lot of women associated with the TMO wearing them, I remember thinking it was mood making, and went against what I had always heard about TM, that it strengthens cultural identity and integrity. On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Another related issue is that people often take what a teacher says out of context. A statement is made in a particular room in a particular situation to a particular person and in front of a particular audience, and some people want to interpret that statement as universally true for all rooms, situations, people and audiences. Big mistake. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Funny how something that seemed so overwhelmingly powerful and important at the time has vanished as a value in my life. Curious really. Consciousness really is amazing almost any way you look at it. I do want to spend some time thinking about the limits of science you presented. That is fascinating. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/15/06 10:58 AM, jim_flanegin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I can't say, never met him, except once in a dream and that doesn't count. My point above was the *assumption* that many (all?) of his followers make. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks From what I¹ve heard, there have been instances in Vlodrop where people have questioned Maharishi respectfully about course fees, MUM policies, etc., and have found their bags packed for them by the time they returned to their room. Ah, so his followers have been asked to practice the 'my way or the highway' sutra. Gee that place must be lot's o' laughs!...not... Well thank God it isn't my karma or dharma to live in such an environment- I'd go nuts. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Funny how something that seemed so overwhelmingly powerful and important at the time has vanished as a value in my life. Curious really. Consciousness really is amazing almost any way you look at it. I do want to spend some time thinking about the limits of science you presented. That is fascinating. With the caveat that expansion beyond limitations is an action more of ongoing comprehension and appreciation, I agree that it is the details that give sweetness to life (leading me to conclude that whoever said, the devil is in the details was the devil himself). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
With the caveat that expansion beyond limitations is an action more of ongoing comprehension and appreciation, I agree that it is the details that give sweetness to life (leading me to conclude that whoever said, the devil is in the details was the devil himself). It is pretty obvious to me that the posters on this group are enjoying everything I am in addition to their spiritual pursuits. If you have one more thing to give your life meaning and joy, more power to you! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Funny how something that seemed so overwhelmingly powerful and important at the time has vanished as a value in my life. Curious really. Consciousness really is amazing almost any way you look at it. I do want to spend some time thinking about the limits of science you presented. That is fascinating. With the caveat that expansion beyond limitations is an action more of ongoing comprehension and appreciation, I agree that it is the details that give sweetness to life (leading me to conclude that whoever said, the devil is in the details was the devil himself). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! Maybe there are some more licks still out there? This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Both, as you remember it, and more. What appeals to me is the expanded *range of choice*. Working with details and within limitations is one of the choices; the ability to do that doesn't get withdrawn. But you can set the limitations wherever you want to, or drop them altogether if you feel like doing that. You aren't limited to one set of limitations, in other words, nor are you limited as to how far you can go in exploring one particular set. This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do you remember I said my experience of development of consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part of that is that limitations become transparent. They're still there, but they don't block what's beyond them. Funny how something that seemed so overwhelmingly powerful and important at the time has vanished as a value in my life. I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept that seemed so powerful and important *was itself limited* as it existed in your mind at the time, and that at a certain point you had grown beyond what it meant to you then--but for various reasons, instead of letting the concept expand along with you, you left it where it was and went off in a different direction. To put it another way, you had a whole lot of bathwater you had to dump in terms of having been heavily involved with the organization and its dogmas and having a personal need to separate yourself from all that in order to breathe. And the baby swimming around therein was still just a baby, so underdeveloped intellectually you couldn't easily connect it to the growth you were experiencing in your life. If my concept of expansion beyond limitations was the same now as it was a few decades ago, I would no longer find it very appealing either. But I didn't have any bathwater to dump, because my involvement with the organization has never been more than peripheral; so I didn't have any problem taking the concept along with me and letting it grow in accord with my experience. Curious really. Consciousness really is amazing almost any way you look at it. Ain't nothing more enthralling, by me. And the more you look at it, the more enthralling it gets. I do want to spend some time thinking about the limits of science you presented. That is fascinating. Enjoy! Heh heh. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do you remember I said my experience of development of consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part of that is that limitations become transparent. They're still there, but they don't block what's beyond them. (I hasten to add this process is very far from complete in my case; I'm describing what seems to me to be a *trend* in my experience, not a fait accompli.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept that seemed so powerful and important *was itself limited* as it existed in your mind at the time, and that at a certain point you had grown beyond what it meant to you then--but for various reasons, instead of letting the concept expand along with you, you left it where it was and went off in a different direction. To put it another way, you had a whole lot of bathwater you had to dump in terms of having been heavily involved with the organization and its dogmas and having a personal need to separate yourself from all that in order to breathe. And the baby swimming around therein was still just a baby, so underdeveloped intellectually you couldn't easily connect it to the growth you were experiencing in your life. It seems from people posting on this group that many have grown and expanded their relationship with MMY in the way you describe. Seeing the changes in how people relate to the movement and spirituality in general has been interesting. I was happy to move on when I did, although it did surprise me at first. I don't regret that my involvement was very intense. I know it is a different perspective for someone like yourself who always had a separate identity outside the group. Your way sounds more psychologically healthy from my present point of view. It doesn't surprise me that you have found a balance that you enjoy and value. For me it was very different, and not only in a negative way. Since I did take MMY at his word, pursuing his programs as he laid them out seemed a rational choice for me. I am glad that I took it to the limit and tested his ideas as throughly as I did. I certainly don't look back and think if only I had... Now I can't claim to speak for anyone else in this regard. We all have to pursue our own style of living. I loved being in TM intensely, and I love my current non-spiritual life. My reasons for leaving TM were different from many others who left TM and spoke about it. I was not a disgruntled member. I had wonderful experiences and insights and had balanced my personal and professional life when I decided to leave. I was teaching part-time and enjoying a great real estate market, so I thought I had it all. I had the bucks to enjoy the privileged side of TMO with its better access to MMY than I had as a full-time member. As I mentioned many times, it was an unexpected cognitive shift that changed everything for me. But I do respect other people's choices with spirituality. I don't forget the value it had for me. I just see it all differently now for my own life. So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! But in the end the exchange of ideas and perspectives is valuable and more important fun. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! Maybe there are some more licks still out there? This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Both, as you remember it, and more. What appeals to me is the expanded *range of choice*. Working with details and within limitations is one of the choices; the ability to do that doesn't get withdrawn. But you can set the limitations wherever you want to, or drop them altogether if you feel like
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Does this mean that I can take my time digitally adding you to the Holy Tradition portrait? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do you remember I said my experience of development of consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part of that is that limitations become transparent. They're still there, but they don't block what's beyond them. (I hasten to add this process is very far from complete in my case; I'm describing what seems to me to be a *trend* in my experience, not a fait accompli.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept that seemed so powerful and important *was itself limited* as it existed in your mind at the time, and that at a certain point you had grown beyond what it meant to you then--but for various reasons, instead of letting the concept expand along with you, you left it where it was and went off in a different direction. To put it another way, you had a whole lot of bathwater you had to dump in terms of having been heavily involved with the organization and its dogmas and having a personal need to separate yourself from all that in order to breathe. And the baby swimming around therein was still just a baby, so underdeveloped intellectually you couldn't easily connect it to the growth you were experiencing in your life. It seems from people posting on this group that many have grown and expanded their relationship with MMY in the way you describe. Seeing the changes in how people relate to the movement and spirituality in general has been interesting. I was happy to move on when I did, although it did surprise me at first. I don't regret that my involvement was very intense. I know it is a different perspective for someone like yourself who always had a separate identity outside the group. Your way sounds more psychologically healthy from my present point of view. It doesn't surprise me that you have found a balance that you enjoy and value. For me it was very different, and not only in a negative way. Since I did take MMY at his word, pursuing his programs as he laid them out seemed a rational choice for me. I am glad that I took it to the limit and tested his ideas as throughly as I did. I certainly don't look back and think if only I had... Now I can't claim to speak for anyone else in this regard. We all have to pursue our own style of living. I loved being in TM intensely, and I love my current non-spiritual life. My reasons for leaving TM were different from many others who left TM and spoke about it. I was not a disgruntled member. I had wonderful experiences and insights and had balanced my personal and professional life when I decided to leave. I was teaching part-time and enjoying a great real estate market, so I thought I had it all. I had the bucks to enjoy the privileged side of TMO with its better access to MMY than I had as a full-time member. As I mentioned many times, it was an unexpected cognitive shift that changed everything for me. OK. Whatever the basis for your leaving the movement, what I find curious is that the way you talk about what you say no longer appeals to you, it wouldn't appeal to me either. It seems sort of stunted and shallow and two-dimensional and colorless, just a lot of empty words. But I guess that's just a function of your current lack of interest, and that at one time it must have been more fully developed. But I do respect other people's choices with spirituality. I don't forget the value it had for me. I just see it all differently now for my own life. So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I didn't mean to suggest any lack in your intellectual capacity, just for the record. In fact, it's the contrast between the vibrancy and depth of your intellect as it shows up here discussing various topics, and the pallidity and flatness when you talk about spirituality (in the TM sense), that led me to make the suggestion in the first place. Yet you like that Kabir poem, which is anything *but* pallid. Is a puzzlement... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this mean that I can take my time digitally adding you to the Holy Tradition portrait? sheesh Yeah, I think you can back-burner it for the next few lives... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do you remember I said my experience of development of consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part of that is that limitations become transparent. They're still there, but they don't block what's beyond them. (I hasten to add this process is very far from complete in my case; I'm describing what seems to me to be a *trend* in my experience, not a fait accompli.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
OK. Whatever the basis for your leaving the movement, what I find curious is that the way you talk about what you say no longer appeals to you, it wouldn't appeal to me either. It seems sort of stunted and shallow and two-dimensional and colorless, just a lot of empty words. I will have to give this some thought. I'll bet there is some interesting feedback here if I can unpack it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept that seemed so powerful and important *was itself limited* as it existed in your mind at the time, and that at a certain point you had grown beyond what it meant to you then--but for various reasons, instead of letting the concept expand along with you, you left it where it was and went off in a different direction. To put it another way, you had a whole lot of bathwater you had to dump in terms of having been heavily involved with the organization and its dogmas and having a personal need to separate yourself from all that in order to breathe. And the baby swimming around therein was still just a baby, so underdeveloped intellectually you couldn't easily connect it to the growth you were experiencing in your life. It seems from people posting on this group that many have grown and expanded their relationship with MMY in the way you describe. Seeing the changes in how people relate to the movement and spirituality in general has been interesting. I was happy to move on when I did, although it did surprise me at first. I don't regret that my involvement was very intense. I know it is a different perspective for someone like yourself who always had a separate identity outside the group. Your way sounds more psychologically healthy from my present point of view. It doesn't surprise me that you have found a balance that you enjoy and value. For me it was very different, and not only in a negative way. Since I did take MMY at his word, pursuing his programs as he laid them out seemed a rational choice for me. I am glad that I took it to the limit and tested his ideas as throughly as I did. I certainly don't look back and think if only I had... Now I can't claim to speak for anyone else in this regard. We all have to pursue our own style of living. I loved being in TM intensely, and I love my current non-spiritual life. My reasons for leaving TM were different from many others who left TM and spoke about it. I was not a disgruntled member. I had wonderful experiences and insights and had balanced my personal and professional life when I decided to leave. I was teaching part-time and enjoying a great real estate market, so I thought I had it all. I had the bucks to enjoy the privileged side of TMO with its better access to MMY than I had as a full-time member. As I mentioned many times, it was an unexpected cognitive shift that changed everything for me. OK. Whatever the basis for your leaving the movement, what I find curious is that the way you talk about what you say no longer appeals to you, it wouldn't appeal to me either. It seems sort of stunted and shallow and two-dimensional and colorless, just a lot of empty words. But I guess that's just a function of your current lack of interest, and that at one time it must have been more fully developed. But I do respect other people's choices with spirituality. I don't forget the value it had for me. I just see it all differently now for my own life. So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I didn't mean to suggest any lack in your intellectual capacity, just for the record. In fact, it's the contrast between the vibrancy and depth of your intellect as it shows up here discussing various topics, and the pallidity and flatness when you talk about spirituality (in the TM sense), that led me to make the suggestion in the first place. Yet you like that Kabir poem, which is anything *but* pallid. Is a puzzlement... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the SIMS shuffle. Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he left the cult in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media, says Maillous. We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world.' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:18 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important "no talk" rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the "SIMS shuffle." Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he "left the cult" in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. "I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media," says Maillous. "We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world."' No, that's not what this reveals, what is seems to reveal is a pattern of corruption and deception at the higher levels, not the rank and file. It also implies this mandate came from *somewhere or someone*--someone pulling the financial and PR strings. Given the history of extreme micromanagement, who do ya think that might be? It's sad to me that someone who is so spiritual would be turned away because of these experiences. __._,_.___ 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 Buddha shakyamuni Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the SIMS shuffle. Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he left the cult in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media, says Maillous. We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world.' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:18 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the SIMS shuffle. Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he left the cult in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media, says Maillous. We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world.' No, that's not what this reveals, what is seems to reveal is a pattern of corruption and deception at the higher levels, not the rank and file. a SIMS teacher is higher level? A center chairman is higher level? It also implies this mandate came from *somewhere or someone*--someone pulling the financial and PR strings. Given the history of extreme micromanagement, who do ya think that might be? It's sad to me that someone who is so spiritual would be turned away because of these experiences. Uh Just today on this board, Curtis seems to have contradicted what he said to Skolnick... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? What specific lies were you told to tell? What lies DID you tell? Spinning things favorably, while distateful, isn't the same as out and out lieing... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? So, you say that you were taught to lie and yet you also say: My reasons for leaving TM were different from many others who left TM and spoke about it. I was not a disgruntled member. I had wonderful experiences and insights and had balanced my personal and professional life when I decided to leave. I was teaching part-time and enjoying a great real estate market, so I thought I had it all. I had the bucks to enjoy the privileged side of TMO with its better access to MMY than I had as a full-time member. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the SIMS shuffle. Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he left the cult in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media, says Maillous. We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world.' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:"Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:" Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? Were you privy to any lies on TMO research? __._,_.___ 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 Buddha shakyamuni Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
No, I was not a researcher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? Were you privy to any lies on TMO research? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Well, no I assumed you weren't. What I was asking was there any hint that some of the research had been "fudged" for PR purposes?On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:42 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:No, I was not a researcher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: "Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:" Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? Were you privy to any lies on TMO research? __._,_.___ 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 Buddha shakyamuni Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time to make sure I let them sink in. I can't resist this one to start: The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I' is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more than just the currently living bodymind called Curtis. From that perspective, what you love most about being alive is absurdly limited. Since I handed over my eternal soul at the crossroads for a few guitar licks I may be stuck with my limits! Maybe there are some more licks still out there? This notion doesn't *reduce* what you love most about being alive; it *expands* it beyond any limitation. All you have to give up is the limitations! Expansion beyond limitations seemed so inspiring to me at one time. Now the words leave me cold. I know it will sound like MMY's My hut, my hut, but the joy of my life all comes from the details and limitations. Do you relate to this more as a concept or is it tied to the expansive sense of euphoria in the program for you? I can remember it in both contexts. Both, as you remember it, and more. What appeals to me is the expanded *range of choice*. Working with details and within limitations is one of the choices; the ability to do that doesn't get withdrawn. But you can set the limitations wherever you want to, or drop them altogether if you feel like doing that. You aren't limited to one set of limitations, in other words, nor are you limited as to how far you can go in exploring one particular set. This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do you remember I said my experience of development of consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part of that is that limitations become transparent. They're still there, but they don't block what's beyond them. Funny how something that seemed so overwhelmingly powerful and important at the time has vanished as a value in my life. I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept that seemed so powerful and important *was itself limited* as it existed in your mind at the time, and that at a certain point you had grown beyond what it meant to you then--but for various reasons, instead of letting the concept expand along with you, you left it where it was and went off in a different direction. To put it another way, you had a whole lot of bathwater you had to dump in terms of having been heavily involved with the organization and its dogmas and having a personal need to separate yourself from all that in order to breathe. And the baby swimming around therein was still just a baby, so underdeveloped intellectually you couldn't easily connect it to the growth you were experiencing in your life. If my concept of expansion beyond limitations was the same now as it was a few decades ago, I would no longer find it very appealing either. But I didn't have any bathwater to dump, because my involvement with the organization has never been more than peripheral; so I didn't have any problem taking the concept along with me and letting it grow in accord with my experience. Curious really. Consciousness really is amazing almost any way you look at it. Ain't nothing more enthralling, by me. And the more you look at it, the more enthralling it gets. I do want to spend some time thinking about the limits of science you presented. That is fascinating. Enjoy! Heh heh. Brilliant! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Your favorite religious organization? Make a donation at Network for Good. http://us.click.yahoo.com/EOl1HB/LPaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Both statements are accurate to my experience. Protecting the group's more controversial beliefs from outsiders did not usually cause me conflict. The end justified the means. This point was important to Andrew because he couldn't understand how a person could willfully deceive JAMA about their relationship to TM for an article. Criticisms like this one was not the reason I left the movement. I understand why TM people were pissed at me. I don't know how else it could have gone down and been true to my experience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? So, you say that you were taught to lie and yet you also say: My reasons for leaving TM were different from many others who left TM and spoke about it. I was not a disgruntled member. I had wonderful experiences and insights and had balanced my personal and professional life when I decided to leave. I was teaching part-time and enjoying a great real estate market, so I thought I had it all. I had the bucks to enjoy the privileged side of TMO with its better access to MMY than I had as a full-time member. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of TMO. I also recognize that this group is far from TMO is so many important ways. Ways that make this group a much nicer and more interesting group to interact with. I have not been able to have a mutually respectful conversation with anyone still in the group mindset. I suspect some of the people here have similar experiences although mine may be a little more intense because I publicly spoke out against the TMO, breaking the most important no talk rule of any dysfunctional family! Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm [...] 'Ex-members say that the movement widely practices a style of deception some call the SIMS shuffle. Curtis Mailloux, a former member who lives in Fairfax, Va, says the name is derived from the Student International Meditation Society, one of the Maharishi's front groups, where many members develop this skill. Mailloux says he left the cult in 1989 after 15 years. As a former TM teacher and chair of the TM center in Washington, DC, the largest in the United States, he is one of the highest ranking members to defect. I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media, says Maillous. We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world.' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the research was valid. Since then I have read perspectives of the research that exposes the weaknesses, but while in the group I was not interested in this perspective at all. There was never a sincere commitment to the scientific method, so we used the charts superficially and we waved the whole collected studies in the air to give the impression that it was all scientifically verified. If a person nailed me on any details of a chart, which sometimes happened, I would manage them with crowd techniques like getting the audience to shush them down. Was that your experience? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, no I assumed you weren't. What I was asking was there any hint that some of the research had been fudged for PR purposes? On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:42 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: No, I was not a researcher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article: Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is it different for you? Were you privy to any lies on TMO research? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Your favorite religious organization? Make a donation at Network for Good. http://us.click.yahoo.com/EOl1HB/LPaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Vaj wrote: What I was asking was there any hint that some of the research had been fudged for PR purposes? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the research was valid. Since then I have read perspectives of the research that exposes the weaknesses, but while in the group I was not interested in this perspective at all. There was never a sincere commitment to the scientific method, so we used the charts superficially and we waved the whole collected studies in the air to give the impression that it was all scientifically verified. If a person nailed me on any details of a chart, which sometimes happened, I would manage them with crowd techniques like getting the audience to shush them down. For the record, here's what you wrote on alt.m.t in 1997: As far as TM using science as marketing instead of as true science, what I mean by this is that the claims of TM are not presented in a form that can be falsifified if the evidence goes the other way. During my 4 years at MIU I was very close to the TM studies in progress and never saw a desire to see if TM works. It was always assumed that it did and the interpretations from the data were adjusted to fit the results. Most claims are not stated in a form that can be falsified by evidence. For example if a new meditator feels good from TM, this is TM working, and if they feel bad, it is un stressing, again TM working. This is not acceptable scientific practice. I experienced that the people around maharishi were so eager to please that data that did not support claims was never brought up. More importantly the spirit of scientific integrity was never respected by a man who by his own admission has a contempt for the scientific method. That is what Andrew was conveying in my perhaps glib but still I believe accurate 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed quote. If the spirit of science was really alive in the movement it would not blacklist people like Benson who published unpopular results. (The 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed refers to a quote from you in the Washington Post--not from Andrew Skolnick in his JAMA article--that Maharishi uses science as a marketing tool, in the same way that 'three out of four dentists surveyed' sells toothpaste but is not science.) There are actually quite a few factual inaccuracies in that earlier alt.m.t quote. Are there any of them you'd like to correct now? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
There are actually quite a few factual inaccuracies in that earlier alt.m.t quote. Are there any of them you'd like to correct now? Nope. But thanks for asking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote: What I was asking was there any hint that some of the research had been fudged for PR purposes? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the research was valid. Since then I have read perspectives of the research that exposes the weaknesses, but while in the group I was not interested in this perspective at all. There was never a sincere commitment to the scientific method, so we used the charts superficially and we waved the whole collected studies in the air to give the impression that it was all scientifically verified. If a person nailed me on any details of a chart, which sometimes happened, I would manage them with crowd techniques like getting the audience to shush them down. For the record, here's what you wrote on alt.m.t in 1997: As far as TM using science as marketing instead of as true science, what I mean by this is that the claims of TM are not presented in a form that can be falsifified if the evidence goes the other way. During my 4 years at MIU I was very close to the TM studies in progress and never saw a desire to see if TM works. It was always assumed that it did and the interpretations from the data were adjusted to fit the results. Most claims are not stated in a form that can be falsified by evidence. For example if a new meditator feels good from TM, this is TM working, and if they feel bad, it is un stressing, again TM working. This is not acceptable scientific practice. I experienced that the people around maharishi were so eager to please that data that did not support claims was never brought up. More importantly the spirit of scientific integrity was never respected by a man who by his own admission has a contempt for the scientific method. That is what Andrew was conveying in my perhaps glib but still I believe accurate 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed quote. If the spirit of science was really alive in the movement it would not blacklist people like Benson who published unpopular results. (The 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed refers to a quote from you in the Washington Post--not from Andrew Skolnick in his JAMA article--that Maharishi uses science as a marketing tool, in the same way that 'three out of four dentists surveyed' sells toothpaste but is not science.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' on 6/15/06 11:40 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I have to agree with Curtis here. If not escorted from the room, you are certainly never welcomed back to it. Feedback that is not of the I agree with you completely, Maharishi was often perceived as disrespectful and a direct challenge to his authority. I remember seeing a fascinating tape in which a very young Keith Wallace argued *vigorously* with MMY about something or other--I think it had to do with how you could tell you were witnessing, but I can't recall the details. Anybody else know the tape I mean? Sure. Great tape. But they were having a lively philosophical/spiritual discussion. Keith wasnt challenging his administrative decisions. And even if he was, that wasnt a problem in those days if it was done respectfully, intelligently, and in the right context. But allegedly, these days Ms controllers (or those whom he controls) dont tolerate it for an instant. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' on 6/15/06 10:58 AM, jim_flanegin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I can't say, never met him, except once in a dream and that doesn't count. My point above was the *assumption* that many (all?) of his followers make. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks From what Ive heard, there have been instances in Vlodrop where people have questioned Maharishi respectfully about course fees, MUM policies, etc., and have found their bags packed for them by the time they returned to their room. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' on 6/15/06 11:53 AM, curtisdeltablues at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks You make a good point here. Controlling the room is something Bush does too and I'll bet seeing Trump personally isn't easy if you are a skeptic. That did not prove my point. The question becomes, does he claim to be enlightened. I vote yes. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's perspective. That is my guess. My conscious rational mind was not functioning properly. Plus I believe the darshon experience is real and powerful. I just do not believe the traditional interpretation of what it means. People who saw Mao described the experience in similar terms of people's description of personal contact with a master. I don't believe it was because he was a radiator of pure being. It may just be one of those mental experiences that had an evolutionary value when not deferring to the alpha chimp could mean death. Just a guess. Or perhaps famous leaders, rock stars, and gurus become focal points for whatever kind of power they represent. The masses focus attention on them; they transmit it back. Of course, gurus and yogis like Tat Wala Baba had plenty of darshan without interacting with many people, but the principle may still be valid. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You made a number of new points that are helping me understand how you are seeing the quote. It will take some time for me to unpack it. I think this is worth the time. It is as good a tool as any to discuss the relationship of mind and body and the possibility for universal consciousness. The re-examination of those concepts is a big reason I am on this group. It is challenging to address these concepts. It reminds me of when I used to study Aristotle's metaphysics at MIU. I remember reading an entire paragraph, every word, and it meant absolutely nothing! Word salad. I would pick apart a few words, discover a concept and slowly tease out what the hell he was talking about. So thanks for that. It may take me a day or two to get back to this. I have to travel for a few days. But that will give me some time to figure out what the hell I am talking about! And who is doing the talking...you understand! Indeed, well put. Whenever... Have a good trip! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I also remember the effect he had on other practitioners--esp. his students--they were legendary (to put it very nicely). As I rememebr, in dharma circles, there was some mention that either he or a student of his made the claim he was a reincarnation of a Tibetan master and that never panned out. And how would it "pan out?" Presumably, for the students, there would be "recognition". That's not to say that "recognition" is some wonderful carte blanche of reincarnated "proof"--it also has it's political bullshit, i.e. you could buy an incarnation(!). I cannot remember if it was investigated, was there ever an official letter issued (i.e. from the office of HHDL)? As if that would prove anything. :-)Yeah, well see my above comments. Look, it's OK for you to dislike Rama; he did a lot of things that are far from likable. It's just that I personally think you're making up all this stuff about legtimate Tibetan teachers saying these things. I think *you're* saying them and attributing them to some unnamed Tibetan teacher. Prove me wrong...give the name of the teacher or teachers who said all this and chances are I know them, and can verify it myself.Listen, I have no need to make this stuff up. I just don't have any investment in Zen Master Rama, so I do not tend to keep material on him around for years for that very reason. Again, it's *OK* to dislike Rama and to say anything against him you want to. But don't try to make your own feelings sound more "legitimate" by ascribing them to others, eh? Honestly I'd just rather say nothing than do that. And I don't think comment coming from a Buddhist teacher or lama gives this any more validity other than the fact that this (showing off with siddhis) is a rather arcane aspect of human interaction, and therefore (due to it's rather arcane nature) not something that just Joe Blow is going to be able to comment on with any authority. Therefore I found it helpful. Actually the whole idea of magical display is an interesting one to me, that's the primary reason I mentioned it, as I thought it might also be so for others. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was really interesting, thanks! --- 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have anything to do with true mysticism, whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the field. Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism. Not only is his treatment of QM and strings (the most popular theory has 10 dimensions, not 11 --the 11th is used to reconcile the various 10-dimensional theories with each other, IIRC) superficial, but his treatment of enlightenment is equally superficial. Sheesh. This is the guy that everyone worships? Wotta maroon. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:56 PM, coshlnx wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature "wants"? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of "what nature wants". In addition, there is much concrete evidence that the E'd can/do perform acts contrary to nature: say, molesting underage females. In addition, in the realm of economics, about the most we can say is that economics is inherently an evolutionary process; and in evolution there is a great deal of "trying out" things resulting in a vastic heuristic interplay of forces. Even saying "what nature wants" is presumptuous tantamount to a tautology. In essence, in view of the unscientific character of such claims as to a. not E'd - problematic but b. E'd OK, everything is supported by nature; this is a typical MMY urban myth. I think it's high time - in the spirit of Sam Harris - to at least use a modicum of logic, if not a strong dose of scientific evidence. Please, no "MMY said so" - therefore it must be true!. But we can still stay Quantum Neo-vedism said so and push Hagelin to the front, can't we?What the bleep? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: It was just a fascinating evening for me, watching her avoiding her own perceptions. I did not tell her before the talk that Rama could do siddhis, or to watch for them, and he never announced that he was about to do them, even to the point of saying Watch this. That night, a small gathering of about 50 students and their guests, he just did them ex tempore, slipping them in *while* giving a talk on something or another. And because of her mumbling thing, there was no question that she was seeing them at the time, but then for whatever reason she decided to not have seen them, and that decision was more powerful than her own perceptions. Go figure. Unless of course she was pissed because she realized he was using some form of suggestion... Some Buddhist teachers have suggested that Zen Master Rama was just doing a form of magical display (if he was not hypnotizing people)-- a kind of minor siddhi where they change people's perceptions. Supposedly much easier to do and a lot more common than actual levitation siddhi. Vaj, just out of curiosity, I'm going to ask you to back up this last paragraph by naming names. I'm asking not out of a desire to defend Rama but out of pure curiosity. I'm not convinced that you're telling the truth here, because I've encountered at least three dozen teachers in Tibetan traditions who have said no such thing about him. The worst that they said (and that I agree with wholeheartedly) is that he was a very high being who in the end succumbed to his own samskaras, and got taken out by his own attachments. No one I've spoken to has ever suggested that the siddhis he was able to perform were anything but real. See, the thing is that I happen to know that the Rama guy only met a handful of actual Tibetan teachers while he was still alive. I know all of these teachers and in general they are favorable towards him (with the caveat listed above, which I agree with). So I'm wondering which teachers you cite were willing to make such a state- ment about *someone they never met*. There are a *lot* of theories about 'hypnotism' and 'suggestion' floating around about Rama and the things he could do. But almost without exception *none* of the people suggesting these theories ever saw him in real life. So I'm asking you to 'name names' to see who would be so silly as to do this. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That was really interesting, thanks! --- 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have anything to do with true mysticism, whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the field. Couple things, Lawson. I don't recommend Wilber as a profound philosopher per se, but I do think he has some very clear insights into various aspects of the relationship between science and mysticism. I don't think this particular talk touted by Vaj shows those insights at their best, however. I'd recommend instead his introduction to Quantum Questions and several of the chapters in Eye to Eye. Also, I'm not at all sure what Wilber says in this vein contradicts Hagelin. I think their approaches come from very different angles and that they aren't really talking about the same thing. Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism. (You meant Hagelin here, not Wilber, right?) Not only is his treatment of QM and strings (the most popular theory has 10 dimensions, not 11 --the 11th is used to reconcile the various 10-dimensional theories with each other, IIRC) superficial, but his treatment of enlightenment is equally superficial. Sheesh. This is the guy that everyone worships? How much have you read of what he's written? Wotta maroon. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: It was just a fascinating evening for me, watching her avoiding her own perceptions. I did not tell her before the talk that Rama could do siddhis, or to watch for them, and he never announced that he was about to do them, even to the point of saying Watch this. That night, a small gathering of about 50 students and their guests, he just did them ex tempore, slipping them in *while* giving a talk on something or another. And because of her mumbling thing, there was no question that she was seeing them at the time, but then for whatever reason she decided to not have seen them, and that decision was more powerful than her own perceptions. Go figure. Unless of course she was pissed because she realized he was using some form of suggestion... Some Buddhist teachers have suggested that Zen Master Rama was just doing a form of magical display (if he was not hypnotizing people)-- a kind of minor siddhi where they change people's perceptions. Supposedly much easier to do and a lot more common than actual levitation siddhi. Vaj, just out of curiosity, I'm going to ask you to back up this last paragraph by naming names. I'm asking not out of a desire to defend Rama but out of pure curiosity. I'm not convinced that you're telling the truth here, because I've encountered at least three dozen teachers in Tibetan traditions who have said no such thing about him. The worst that they said (and that I agree with wholeheartedly) is that he was a very high being who in the end succumbed to his own samskaras, and got taken out by his own attachments. No one I've spoken to has ever suggested that the siddhis he was able to perform were anything but real. See, the thing is that I happen to know that the Rama guy only met a handful of actual Tibetan teachers while he was still alive. I know all of these teachers and in general they are favorable towards him (with the caveat listed above, which I agree with). So I'm wondering which teachers you cite were willing to make such a state- ment about *someone they never met*. There are a *lot* of theories about 'hypnotism' and 'suggestion' floating around about Rama and the things he could do. But almost without exception *none* of the people suggesting these theories ever saw him in real life. So I'm asking you to 'name names' to see who would be so silly as to do this. If I can find the old email, I'll post it. IIRC these weren't people who knew Zen Master Rama personally. I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp. if inner qualities were lacking. Had any of this ever been witnessed by a trained magician just out of curiosity? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unless of course she was pissed because she realized he was using some form of suggestion... Some Buddhist teachers have suggested that Zen Master Rama was just doing a form of magical display (if he was not hypnotizing people)-- a kind of minor siddhi where they change people's perceptions. Supposedly much easier to do and a lot more common than actual levitation siddhi. Vaj, just out of curiosity, I'm going to ask you to back up this last paragraph by naming names. I'm asking not out of a desire to defend Rama but out of pure curiosity. I'm not convinced that you're telling the truth here, because I've encountered at least three dozen teachers in Tibetan traditions who have said no such thing about him. The worst that they said (and that I agree with wholeheartedly) is that he was a very high being who in the end succumbed to his own samskaras, and got taken out by his own attachments. No one I've spoken to has ever suggested that the siddhis he was able to perform were anything but real. See, the thing is that I happen to know that the Rama guy only met a handful of actual Tibetan teachers while he was still alive. I know all of these teachers and in general they are favorable towards him (with the caveat listed above, which I agree with). So I'm wondering which teachers you cite were willing to make such a state- ment about *someone they never met*. There are a *lot* of theories about 'hypnotism' and 'suggestion' floating around about Rama and the things he could do. But almost without exception *none* of the people suggesting these theories ever saw him in real life. So I'm asking you to 'name names' to see who would be so silly as to do this. If I can find the old email, I'll post it. IIRC these weren't people who knew Zen Master Rama personally. No, I didn't think so. I would also be willing to bet the farm that they never saw him in any of his public talks either. I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp. if inner qualities were lacking. It makes sense if you weren't there. If you were there, it seems a lot like someone trying to cling to his preconceptions. :-) Had any of this ever been witnessed by a trained magician just out of curiosity? I have no idea. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature wants? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of what nature wants. snip Please, no MMY said so - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature wants? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is true. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of what nature wants. snip Please, no MMY said so - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people don't make mistakes is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature wants? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of what nature wants. snip Please, no MMY said so - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature wants? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is true. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of what nature wants. snip Please, no MMY said so - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people don't make mistakes is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethics and morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay of all megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' "The enlightened person,according to MMY's teaching, doesn't makemistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it'sentirely possible for nature to "want" theenlightened person to make a mistake, fornature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., tonudge the person's followers into using theirown judgment)."I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does hepull this off?--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature "wants"?If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is "true." Equallyspeculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMYwould be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd,there are varying degrees of "what nature wants". snip Please, no "MMY said so" - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people "don't make mistakes" is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's entirely possible for nature to "want" the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it issimply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is justeasier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM~- To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I have to agree with Curtis here. If not escorted from the room, you are certainly never welcomed back to it. Feedback that is not of the I agree with you completely, Maharishi was often perceived as disrespectful and a direct challenge to his authority. Another related issue is that people often take what a teacher says out of context. A statement is made in a particular room in a particular situation to a particular person and in front of a particular audience, and some people want to interpret that statement as universally true for all rooms, situations, people and audiences. Big mistake. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical nonsense that MMY taught, which was based on lies, misappropriation of truth and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha Ha. - Original Message - From: Kirk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' 'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethics and morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay of all megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' "The enlightened person,according to MMY's teaching, doesn't makemistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it'sentirely possible for nature to "want" theenlightened person to make a mistake, fornature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., tonudge the person's followers into using theirown judgment)."I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does hepull this off?--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature "wants"?If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is "true." Equallyspeculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMYwould be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd,there are varying degrees of "what nature wants". snip Please, no "MMY said so" - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people "don't make mistakes" is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's entirely possible for nature to "want" the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it issimply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is justeasier. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM~- To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethics and morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay of all megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. I don't think we should give up on it so fast. I mean what if we could use it in a more limited context. Like we could say , I was going to take out the trash but nature wanted me to watch TV. I don't think we should use it for lipstick stains on collors. For that I suggest the mistake of the intellect line. As in honey lets not make a mistake of the intellect and conclude that this shade is your hot best friend's. It may be in our best interest to use this, not for large scale evil, but just to give a dude a break around the house once in a while. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature wants? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he does are the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is true. Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of what nature wants. snip Please, no MMY said so - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people don't make mistakes is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and they are yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning of an enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intention based on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html And how would he know? Uh, he's a physicist and a mystic? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I can't say, never met him, except once in a dream and that doesn't count. My point above was the *assumption* that many (all?) of his followers make. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
The real mistake of the intellect from a true jnana perspective is the reification of any 'concept' as if it has some ultimate value. Thereby conditions are set up. The true majestic status of life is thereby undermined by the intellect, that is usurped from direct cognition instead into some new dualistic rendition. This is the truth of the Mahasidha.That all truths are merely the intellectual constructs of dvaitins. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:50 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethicsand morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay ofall megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. I don't think we should give up on it so fast. I mean what if wecould use it in a more limited context. Like we could say , "I wasgoing to take out the trash but nature wanted me to watch TV."I don't think we should use it for lipstick stains on collors. Forthat I suggest the " mistake of the intellect" line. As in "honeylets not make a mistake of the intellect and conclude that this shadeis your hot best friend's."It may be in our best interest to use this, not for large scale evil,but just to give a dude a break around the house once in a while. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' "The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's entirely possible for nature to "want" the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment)." I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity consciousness. In other words: Does he have the ability to want to do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature "wants"? If he is enlightened, then what nature wants and what he doesare the same thing; indistinguishable. This is speculation, not a trace of evidence for it. Just to clarify the context, it had to do with whether what MMY teaches is internally consistent, not whether what he teaches is "true."Equally speculative but not as much based on flawed authorities like MMY would be the statement that among the unenlightened, and the E'd, there are varying degrees of "what nature wants". snip Please,no "MMY said so" - therefore it must be true!. This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi[or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer tothis phenomenon as transference), and then based on thatassumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says.It's the second part of this that causes the most trouble, IMO. At least (again) in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people "don't make mistakes" is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it's entirely possible for nature to "want" the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). Another point to make for you: argue for your limitations and theyare yours. That is one of the completely different ways of functioning ofan enlightened person. Before enlightenment, it is all intentionbased on ego, which is not a bad thing, just a lot harder. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is justeasier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to supportnature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people don't make mistakes is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). How could it be possible for an enlightened person to act without making mistakes, and have potentially 6 billion witnesses to every action of the enlightened person state that yes, no mistakes were ever made? Not now, not on this planet. It is a silly thought, and clearly impossible. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical nonsense that MMY taught, which was based on lies, misappropriation of truth and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha Ha. - Original Message - From: Kirk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' 'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching is the bane of religious ethics and morality. The same issue was used by Hitler and is a mainstay of all megalomaniacs to allow them to issue any fatwa that they wish. - Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? snip get 'married' to him and you'll see... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:20 AM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was really interesting, thanks! --- 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have anything to do with "true mysticism," whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the field.He also got the Ig Nobel Prize, which is for "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced", i.e., for pseudoscience. Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism.Would that include his old friend Skip Alexander? Not only is his treatment of QM and strings (the most popular theory has 10 dimensions, not 11 --the 11th is used to reconcile the various 10-dimensional theories with each other, IIRC) superficial, but his treatment of enlightenment is equally superficial.Have you read any of his books on this topic, they're pretty friggin' detailed (not that I agree with everything he says).It was probably quite hard for him to be honest enough to come out and say a lot of this on physics and mysticism--esp. since it goes against the grain of what many of his friends are saying. Sheesh. This is the guy that everyone worships?Worships? Everyone? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical nonsense that MMY taught, which was based on lies, misappropriation of truth and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha Ha. snip I know- sounds completely insane, huh? Oh well... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? Did your wife perhaps have some doubts about whether you were enlightened? (Again, I'm extrapolating from MMY's teaching; as I said, *he* doesn't make this clear, that I've heard, but it's implied, it seems to me, by the other things he says about the nature of enlightenment and his commentary on the Gita's Unfathomable is the nature of action.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I have to agree with Curtis here. If not escorted from the room, you are certainly never welcomed back to it. Feedback that is not of the I agree with you completely, Maharishi was often perceived as disrespectful and a direct challenge to his authority. I remember seeing a fascinating tape in which a very young Keith Wallace argued *vigorously* with MMY about something or other--I think it had to do with how you could tell you were witnessing, but I can't recall the details. Anybody else know the tape I mean? Another related issue is that people often take what a teacher says out of context. A statement is made in a particular room in a particular situation to a particular person and in front of a particular audience, and some people want to interpret that statement as universally true for all rooms, situations, people and audiences. Big mistake. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks You make a good point here. Controlling the room is something Bush does too and I'll bet seeing Trump personally isn't easy if you are a skeptic. That did not prove my point. The question becomes, does he claim to be enlightened. I vote yes. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's perspective. That is my guess. My conscious rational mind was not functioning properly. Plus I believe the darshon experience is real and powerful. I just do not believe the traditional interpretation of what it means. People who saw Mao described the experience in similar terms of people's description of personal contact with a master. I don't believe it was because he was a radiator of pure being. It may just be one of those mental experiences that had an evolutionary value when not deferring to the alpha chimp could mean death. Just a guess. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi [or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption, interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and misunderstanding what the guru says. I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in any way other then as enlightened master you are quickly escorted out of the room. It is not assumed, it is enforced. I can't say, never met him, except once in a dream and that doesn't count. My point above was the *assumption* that many (all?) of his followers make. Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:20 AM, sparaig wrote: snip Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have anything to do with true mysticism, whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the field. He also got the Ig Nobel Prize, which is for achievements that cannot, or should not, be reproduced, i.e., for pseudoscience. For the record (I could have sworn I made this point to you before, Vaj), the Ig Nobel is not for pseudoscience, or not *just* for pseudoscience. Plenty of perfectly legitimate scientific achievements are awarded the Ig Nobel because they're weird in one way or another. Those are covered by the or should not part. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Did your wife perhaps have some doubts about whether you were enlightened? Yeah, that was it. She had way too much counter-evidence! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). I could never get this excuse to fly when I was married. How does he pull this off? Did your wife perhaps have some doubts about whether you were enlightened? (Again, I'm extrapolating from MMY's teaching; as I said, *he* doesn't make this clear, that I've heard, but it's implied, it seems to me, by the other things he says about the nature of enlightenment and his commentary on the Gita's Unfathomable is the nature of action.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks You make a good point here. Controlling the room is something Bush does too and I'll bet seeing Trump personally isn't easy if you are a skeptic. That did not prove my point. The question becomes, does he claim to be enlightened. I vote yes. And my question remains, so what? Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's perspective. That is my guess. My conscious rational mind was not functioning properly. Plus I believe the darshon experience is real and powerful. I just do not believe the traditional interpretation of what it means. People who saw Mao described the experience in similar terms of people's description of personal contact with a master. I don't believe it was because he was a radiator of pure being. It may just be one of those mental experiences that had an evolutionary value when not deferring to the alpha chimp could mean death. Just a guess. I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target? lol. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical nonsense that MMY taught, which was based on lies, misappropriation of truth and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha Ha. snip I know- sounds completely insane, huh? Oh well... MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he be? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's perspective. That is my guess. My conscious rational mind was not functioning properly. Plus I believe the darshon experience is real and powerful. I just do not believe the traditional interpretation of what it means. People who saw Mao described the experience in similar terms of people's description of personal contact with a master. I don't believe it was because he was a radiator of pure being. It may just be one of those mental experiences that had an evolutionary value when not deferring to the alpha chimp could mean death. Just a guess. I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target? lol. I think you're making a simple thing complicated. In many if not most cases the 'darshan' thang is not a factor because many TM teachers have never met Maharishi or been in the same room with them, much less rank-and-file meditators. I think it's as simple as the fact that they just paid a lot of money for a technique that promises enlightenment, and they hopefully assume that the seller is enlightened and that their money was not wasted. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That was really interesting, thanks! --- 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have anything to do with true mysticism, whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the field. Couple things, Lawson. I don't recommend Wilber as a profound philosopher per se, but I do think he has some very clear insights into various aspects of the relationship between science and mysticism. I don't think this particular talk touted by Vaj shows those insights at their best, however. I'd recommend instead his introduction to Quantum Questions and several of the chapters in Eye to Eye. Also, I'm not at all sure what Wilber says in this vein contradicts Hagelin. I think their approaches come from very different angles and that they aren't really talking about the same thing. He mentions the so-called experts from what the Bleep Do We Know, which presents Hagelin as a top Quantum Physicist. I'd be greatly surprised if he did NOT mean to denounce Hagelin's talk in the movie. Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism. (You meant Hagelin here, not Wilber, right?) I meant Wilber. Not only is his treatment of QM and strings (the most popular theory has 10 dimensions, not 11 --the 11th is used to reconcile the various 10-dimensional theories with each other, IIRC) superficial, but his treatment of enlightenment is equally superficial. Sheesh. This is the guy that everyone worships? How much have you read of what he's written? I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that anyone who talks about QM and mysticism is doing bad mysticism. Wotta maroon. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target? lol. I'm sure this is true in many relationships. I think when he adopted the name Maharishi, he was stacking the deck in favor of that belief. But I respect your emphasis on personal responsibility. Lifton is a thought-reform expert. His work had a profound impact on my perspective of my experiences in TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering info. Thanks You make a good point here. Controlling the room is something Bush does too and I'll bet seeing Trump personally isn't easy if you are a skeptic. That did not prove my point. The question becomes, does he claim to be enlightened. I vote yes. And my question remains, so what? Just because he said he was enlightened, why did they believe it? This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's perspective. That is my guess. My conscious rational mind was not functioning properly. Plus I believe the darshon experience is real and powerful. I just do not believe the traditional interpretation of what it means. People who saw Mao described the experience in similar terms of people's description of personal contact with a master. I don't believe it was because he was a radiator of pure being. It may just be one of those mental experiences that had an evolutionary value when not deferring to the alpha chimp could mean death. Just a guess. I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target? lol. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html 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... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip in the context of what MMY teaches, the dictum that enlightened people don't make mistakes is frequently misunderstood (and MMY hasn't done a whole lot to clarify it). The enlightened person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's entirely possible for nature to want the enlightened person to make a mistake, for nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to nudge the person's followers into using their own judgment). How could it be possible for an enlightened person to act without making mistakes, and have potentially 6 billion witnesses to every action of the enlightened person state that yes, no mistakes were ever made? Not now, not on this planet. It is a silly thought, and clearly impossible. I've always interpretted no mistake as meaning that a mistake is something that detracts from one's evolution towards higher states of consciousness. One could say that as someone evolves, this no mistake thing evolves to include more than one's own personal evolution, or rather, that more and more, one's own personal evolution depends on everyone else's, but I've never seen MMY as claiming that enlightened people never make typos or whatever. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could hebe? Sudra Mahesh Varma __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I've always interpretted no mistake as meaning that a mistake is something that detracts from one's evolution towards higher states of consciousness. I'll bet you a zillion dollars you can't come up with an example...; ) One could say that as someone evolves, this no mistake thing evolves to include more than one's own personal evolution, or rather, that more and more, one's own personal evolution depends on everyone else's, We are always connected to everyone else, regardless... but I've never seen MMY as claiming that enlightened people never make typos or whatever. That's good! whew!lol Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
A great example of this was when he came here, sometime in the late 70s I think, he apparently made the offhand remark that someone's sari was really nice, or something to that effect. Next time he came--most of the women were wearing saris, and he couldn't believe it and wanted to know why. Sal On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:42 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Another related issue is that people often take what a teacher says out of context. A statement is made in a particular room in a particular situation to a particular person and in front of a particular audience, and some people want to interpret that statement as universally true for all rooms, situations, people and audiences. Big mistake.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he be? Sudra Mahesh Varma I vote for Bob's Big Boy! checkered overalls and everything. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target? lol. I'm sure this is true in many relationships. I think when he adopted the name Maharishi, he was stacking the deck in favor of that belief. Again, so what? In this lifetime, many, many people have tried to sell me many, many things...it surely is not their fault, is it? But I respect your emphasis on personal responsibility. Who else could I possibly be responsible for except my children of course... Lifton is a thought-reform expert. His work had a profound impact on my perspective of my experiences in TM. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.htmlAnd 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? :http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=2288 __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Flippancy isn't neccesarily a sense of humour. It's more a state of egoic conceit. - Original Message - From: jim_flanegin To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he be? Sudra Mahesh VarmaI vote for Bob's Big Boy! checkered overalls and everything. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM~- To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- 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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html 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? : http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php? option=com_contenttask=viewid=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. He made no distinction between the average adult's concentrative ability and the adept's ability, save amount of time spent focusing. 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. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Peter wrote: --- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical nonsense that MMY taught, which was based on lies, misappropriation of truth and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha Ha. snip I know- sounds completely insane, huh? Oh well... MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he be? When you meditate on your ishta devata you become more like that entity and less like some ordinary human being. It is like channeling that energy. I guess in some broad definition you could call that an incarnation but in reality it can happen to hundreds if not thousands or millions of people at the same time. This effect I'm sure has been experienced by folks on this list. It is amusing when one moment I reading some articles on a Jyotish list with Indians discussing ishta devatas and then flip channels over to here and read western perspectives on it. The Indians should be invited here for some good laughs. :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
[Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. ME: This is about the physical body. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. ME: This is about the mind The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be a conclusion from the two premises. This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. It is far from the only possible inference. You must be referring to material you have read from him outside this quote? Is this from What is Life? I read it years ago. Your commentary was interesting. I don't have a well formed opinion about relating the rules governing atoms and our thoughts. It just seems like more proof by analogy than good science or good philosophy to me. I can't say that I believe they are separate, because I don't know enough about either side. But I can challenge that he knows that they do. He is putting together ideas that may not go together. This is Wilber's point right? I read your post many times and wrote quite a few responses before coming up with this lame contribution! I enjoyed it though. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. I think I can put my finger on where I disagree with him. it is where he speaks on behalf of every conscious mind that has ever said 'I' and then jumps to controlling the motion of atoms. He should have said, controls the motions of our own bodies. The jump he is making is poetic but wrong. Just because we control our own bodies does not give us the right to claim controlling atoms. The atomic level is working on its own without the participation of the consciousness that emerges from the functioning of our brains which is driven by laws of nature at a completely different level. Am I missing something? I'm not sure. Let me take it point by point: First of all, he's saying that you, Curtis, are not controlling your own body, as far as science is concerned. Rather, it's the gunas, in TM-speak, that are doing it. That you, Curtis, think *you* are doing it is an illusion. You are, however, controlling the gunas from the transcendental perspective (Be without the three gunas...)--not you the localized body and mind of Curtis, but You the universal, unbounded, nonlocal Self of everyone. Second, he's not saying we (our small selves) have the sense of controlling only our bodies but of controlling our minds as well; but the statistico- deterministic laws as observed by science say that's also an illusion. But I'm not sure either of these affect your point. What you're saying, if I understand you, is that the control of our thoughts is an emergent property that doesn't follow the same laws as those that control atoms (actually the elementary particles that compose the atoms). This claim, however, is just about as grand, and as unsupported by science, as his. I don't think your problem with what he says is that he's making too big a leap; I think it's that you disagree with the premise he's assuming as the very basis for his argument. He's saying the control of thought *does* follow the same laws as those that control the atoms. You're saying control of thought is independent of the laws that control the atoms. That's a perfectly respectable philosophical position, but it's also essentially a mystical one in that science cannot observe or test it, any more than it can observe or test his. At least, if I'm
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flippancy isn't neccesarily a sense of humour. It's more a state of egoic conceit. OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I thought... - Original Message - From: jim_flanegin To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he be? Sudra Mahesh Varma I vote for Bob's Big Boy! checkered overalls and everything. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip Also, I'm not at all sure what Wilber says in this vein contradicts Hagelin. I think their approaches come from very different angles and that they aren't really talking about the same thing. He mentions the so-called experts from what the Bleep Do We Know, which presents Hagelin as a top Quantum Physicist. I'd be greatly surprised if he did NOT mean to denounce Hagelin's talk in the movie. I didn't suggest he didn't mean to denounce it. Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism. (You meant Hagelin here, not Wilber, right?) I meant Wilber. Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic, sorry. snip How much have you read of what he's written? I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that anyone who talks about QM and mysticism is doing bad mysticism. I believe that was Vaj's (mis)representation. I wouldn't evaluate Wilber either by that talk or by Vaj's opinion of it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
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: http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html 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? : http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php? option=com_contenttask=viewid=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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. ME: This is about the physical body. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. ME: This is about the mind I'm not sure he's making the distinction the same way you are. (Remember this is a translation from the German, so it's possible there are nuances that got lost.) As I read him, he's including the functioning of the brain in body--synapses, chemicals, electrical currents, etc. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be a conclusion from the two premises. Again, he does call it an inference rather than a conclusion. This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. I'm honestly still not sure why you say that. I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but not why you can't see how he gets to that inference from that contradiction. It *does* resolve the contradiction if you accept as a possibility the premise that each human consciousness is an individualization of a single Universal Consciousness. It is far from the only possible inference. You must be referring to material you have read from him outside this quote? Nope. It's from the essay (this'll turn you off real good!) The 'I' That Is God. Is this from What is Life? I read it years ago. Your commentary was interesting. I don't have a well formed opinion about relating the rules governing atoms and our thoughts. It just seems like more proof by analogy than good science or good philosophy to me. I can't say that I believe they are separate, because I don't know enough about either side. But I can challenge that he knows that they do. He is putting together ideas that may not go together. This is Wilber's point right? I read your post many times and wrote quite a few responses before coming up with this lame contribution! I enjoyed it though. Likewise. A thought-provoking discussion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I thought...---Oh, yes, that's okay then. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I thought... ---Oh, yes, that's okay then. Just to clarify, Peter had asked who else Maharishi could be? I thought that the way he asked the question implied that Maharishi could be anybody at all. So you suggested one possibility, and I suggested another. I specifically chose an identity [Bob's Big Boy] that was very far away from any convention that Maharishi represents; Western, associated with an omnivorous diet, fictional, not associated with particularly deep knowledge, not associated with spirituality, etc. My intent was such that the reader might sense the vast gulf between your answer and mine, and infer what Peter's question implied, that Maharishi could be anyone at all. So you see, I was being seriously absurd. Maybe it worked, and maybe it didn't. Just a little bit of fun. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. ME: This is about the physical body. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. ME: This is about the mind I'm not sure he's making the distinction the same way you are. (Remember this is a translation from the German, so it's possible there are nuances that got lost.) As I read him, he's including the functioning of the brain in body--synapses, chemicals, electrical currents, etc. ME: I definitely agree with you here. All that stuff is on the body side. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be a conclusion from the two premises. Again, he does call it an inference rather than a conclusion. Me: OK , he warned me. This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. I'm honestly still not sure why you say that. I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but not why you can't see how he gets to that inference from that contradiction. It *does* resolve the contradiction if you accept as a possibility the premise that each human consciousness is an individualization of a single Universal Consciousness. Me: I feel a little thick but I don't see it. He might as well say, then magic happens. I don't even understand why he thinks the two separate parts of our existence are contradictory. They are just on different levels and don't need to be resolved. But if they did, I don't see how imagining a universal consciousness helps. Unless he just believes that to be so and the whole set up was just a ruse for him to pull this rabbit out of his hat. Perhaps you can help me understand how this resolves the differences better. In what way? Isn't he just claiming that the mind is not really experiencing free will but the determinism of the group I? Is that how you see it? I think our free will is actually constrained by habits, past experiences, and lots of other psychological factors. Acting freely in a new direction from my past takes a lot of effort and force of will. My greatest happiness comes from fighting those deterministic tendencies and doing something new. It is something I practice. The fact that my body is determined by laws of nature makes perfect sense. I don't want to think about breathing or digesting, and I accept that it has rule I must follow to survive. I have learned that I have to impose my will over my body with exercise because inertia is easy to fall into physically. It is often an act of will to start to exercise, even though I enjoy it while I am doing it and afterwards. What's with that? But I have learned that it wont happen if I don't will it to happen. This ramble is just me trying to think about where the contradiction is that needs resolving. I am not there yet. It is far from the only possible inference. You must be referring to material you have read from him outside this quote? Nope. It's from the essay (this'll turn you off real good!) The 'I' That Is God. Me: I would be open to reading it. I have learned not to assume that I know what a person means when they use the word God. Sometimes it just means life using more poetic language and that is fine with me. he probably has an interesting version of this concept. High five for being thought provoking! Is this from What is Life? I read it years ago. Your commentary was interesting. I don't have a well formed opinion about relating the rules governing atoms and our thoughts. It just seems like more proof by analogy than good science or good philosophy to me. I can't say that I believe they are separate, because I don't know enough about either side. But I can challenge that he knows that they do. He is putting together ideas that may not go together. This is Wilber's point right? I read your post many times and wrote quite a few responses before coming up with this lame contribution! I enjoyed it though. Likewise. A thought-provoking discussion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
So you see, I was being seriously absurd. Maybe it worked, and maybe it didn't. Just a little bit of fun. ---I think we both missed the mark and that he meant that everybody is Shiva. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
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 completelybeyond science."It is beyond the scientific method in its focus and range, but Ithink Sam Harris would claim that when it talks about how theworld "is" mysticism enters the field where logic does apply. Youmentioned that Schroedinger is a physicist, a world class one atthat from what I understand. But Physics is a field driven by mathskills and I don't think that gives him a leg up on this kind ofdiscussion over say...you or Chopra. It is all speculation aboutlife. He leaves his credibility in his own field far behind on thesetopics. Because you have gained something from it, I will spendsome more time thinking about it. Curtis you might enjoy the following brief talk with Ken Wilber wherehe answers the question "does quantum physics prove god?" where herather elegantly explains that the quantum state is not unmanifestspirit/brahman/the tao/PC. Interesting talk. Not so interesting forthe TM quantum mysticism, but rather embarrassing. I think byextension you could conclude that a mysticism based on Quantumphysics is pretty bad mysticism...It's on page two:http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html 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 ratherbroad term. I wouldn't term him a mystic in the TM sense of being enlightened. Not whenhe talks about the need to be able to focus on objects for 5 minutes non-stop in order toprogress 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? :http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php? option=com_contenttask=viewid=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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp. if inner qualities were lacking. It makes sense if you weren't there. If you were there, it seems a lot like someone trying to cling to his preconceptions. :-) In this case what it is IMO is someone with a large amount of experience--an expert--sharing what this type of thing usually means. It's happened before, it will happen again. Since it violates a lot of Buddhist ethics, it kinda rules out the guy being some great reincarnation. But that's obvious also based on his actions, which were destructive to sentient beings.You also can learn a lot from how people reacted to these incidents, i.e. the old GF you mentioned: confusion, anger, etc: destructive emotions. Not a good sign.I also remember the effect he had on other practitioners--esp. his students--they were legendary (to put it very nicely).As I rememebr, in dharma circles, there was some mention that either he or a student of his made the claim he was a reincarnation of a Tibetan master and that never panned out. I cannot remember if it was investigated, was there ever an official letter issued (i.e. from the office of HHDL)? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that anyone who talks about QM and mysticism is doing bad mysticism. I believe that was Vaj's (mis)representation. I wouldn't evaluate Wilber either by that talk or by Vaj's opinion of it. Well, I CAN evaluate what Wiber said. It wasn't terribly coherent, IMHO, and in fact, Vaj's interpretation of what Wilber said seems quite accurate. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I thought... ---Oh, yes, that's okay then. Just to clarify, Peter had asked who else Maharishi could be? I thought that the way he asked the question implied that Maharishi could be anybody at all. So you suggested one possibility, and I suggested another. I specifically chose an identity [Bob's Big Boy] that was very far away from any convention that Maharishi represents; Western, associated with an omnivorous diet, fictional, not associated with particularly deep knowledge, not associated with spirituality, etc. My intent was such that the reader might sense the vast gulf between your answer and mine, and infer what Peter's question implied, that Maharishi could be anyone at all. So you see, I was being seriously absurd. Maybe it worked, and maybe it didn't. Just a little bit of fun. I got your sense of whimsy that MMY could be anyone. Besides, Big Boy is a reasonably nice icon to emulate, compared to many you could have chosen. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I thought... ---Oh, yes, that's okay then. Just to clarify, Peter had asked who else Maharishi could be? I thought that the way he asked the question implied that Maharishi could be anybody at all. So you suggested one possibility, and I suggested another. I specifically chose an identity [Bob's Big Boy] that was very far away from any convention that Maharishi represents; Western, associated with an omnivorous diet, fictional, not associated with particularly deep knowledge, not associated with spirituality, etc. My intent was such that the reader might sense the vast gulf between your answer and mine, and infer what Peter's question implied, that Maharishi could be anyone at all. So you see, I was being seriously absurd. Maybe it worked, and maybe it didn't. Just a little bit of fun. I got your sense of whimsy that MMY could be anyone. Besides, Big Boy is a reasonably nice icon to emulate, compared to many you could have chosen. Glad you got it! ...I used to like the restaurants Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that anyone who talks about QM and mysticism is doing bad mysticism. I believe that was Vaj's (mis)representation. I wouldn't evaluate Wilber either by that talk or by Vaj's opinion of it. Well, I CAN evaluate what Wiber said. It wasn't terribly coherent, IMHO, and in fact, Vaj's interpretation of what Wilber said seems quite accurate. Jeez, Lawson, I didn't say you couldn't, I said *I wouldn't*. I *agree* with you about the coherence of that talk. That's why I wouldn't recommend that talk as something by which to evaluate Wilber as a thinker. I don't blame you for thinking he's not so swift if that's all you have to go by. I'm just suggesting that there's a lot more to his thinking, a lot more *coherence* to his thinking, than is evident from that talk. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:23 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: [...] I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that anyone who talks about QM and mysticism is doing bad mysticism. I believe that was Vaj's (mis)representation. I wouldn't evaluate Wilber either by that talk or by Vaj's opinion of it. Well, I CAN evaluate what Wiber said. It wasn't terribly coherent, IMHO, and in fact, Vaj's interpretation of what Wilber said seems quite accurate. Did you watch any of the three part lecture I posted a while back on "Ethics and Enlightenment"? I'd also posted many other things--you've never watched any of them? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. ME: This is about the physical body. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. ME: This is about the mind I'm not sure he's making the distinction the same way you are. (Remember this is a translation from the German, so it's possible there are nuances that got lost.) As I read him, he's including the functioning of the brain in body--synapses, chemicals, electrical currents, etc. ME: I definitely agree with you here. All that stuff is on the body side. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be a conclusion from the two premises. Again, he does call it an inference rather than a conclusion. Me: OK , he warned me. This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. I'm honestly still not sure why you say that. I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but not why you can't see how he gets to that inference from that contradiction. It *does* resolve the contradiction if you accept as a possibility the premise that each human consciousness is an individualization of a single Universal Consciousness. Me: I feel a little thick but I don't see it. And I'm feeling a little thick because I'm not seeing what you find objectionable! He might as well say, then magic happens. I don't even understand why he thinks the two separate parts of our existence are contradictory. They are just on different levels and don't need to be resolved. But that's your speculation, not scientific fact. But if they did, I don't see how imagining a universal consciousness helps. Unless he just believes that to be so and the whole set up was just a ruse for him to pull this rabbit out of his hat. Perhaps you can help me understand how this resolves the differences better. In what way? Isn't he just claiming that the mind is not really experiencing free will but the determinism of the group I? Is that how you see it? It's experiencing the *free will* of the group 'I' and interpreting it as its own free will. I think our free will is actually constrained by habits, past experiences, and lots of other psychological factors. Sure it is, but as you go on to say, to some extent, at least, it appears to us that we can overcome those constraints. So the fact that there are some constraints doesn't go counter to his thesis. Acting freely in a new direction from my past takes a lot of effort and force of will. My greatest happiness comes from fighting those deterministic tendencies and doing something new. It is something I practice. The fact that my body is determined by laws of nature makes perfect sense. I don't want to think about breathing or digesting, and I accept that it has rule I must follow to survive. I have learned that I have to impose my will over my body with exercise because inertia is easy to fall into physically. It is often an act of will to start to exercise, even though I enjoy it while I am doing it and afterwards. What's with that? But I have learned that it wont happen if I don't will it to happen. This ramble is just me trying to think about where the contradiction is that needs resolving. I am not there yet. The contradiction is that according to science, your constraints, your sense of exercising an act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment of all that are all *determined*, because the behavior of the elementary particles that make your mind, as well as your body, function operates via mathematically predictable statistical probabilities; there are no surprises. Theoretically, if we could compute the billions of bits of behavior of those gazillions of elementary particles, we could predict precisely the chances of your choosing to exercise versus choosing to watch football on TV. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clinical evidence, as it happens, for free will, whereas there's quite a bit *against* it. I was just reading an article in the Times today
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
You made a number of new points that are helping me understand how you are seeing the quote. It will take some time for me to unpack it. I think this is worth the time. It is as good a tool as any to discuss the relationship of mind and body and the possibility for universal consciousness. The re-examination of those concepts is a big reason I am on this group. It is challenging to address these concepts. It reminds me of when I used to study Aristotle's metaphysics at MIU. I remember reading an entire paragraph, every word, and it meant absolutely nothing! Word salad. I would pick apart a few words, discover a concept and slowly tease out what the hell he was talking about. So thanks for that. It may take me a day or two to get back to this. I have to travel for a few days. But that will give me some time to figure out what the hell I am talking about! And who is doing the talking...you understand! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Quoting Schroedinger:] Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. ME: This is about the physical body. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. ME: This is about the mind I'm not sure he's making the distinction the same way you are. (Remember this is a translation from the German, so it's possible there are nuances that got lost.) As I read him, he's including the functioning of the brain in body--synapses, chemicals, electrical currents, etc. ME: I definitely agree with you here. All that stuff is on the body side. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said I--am the person, if any, who controls the motion of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature. Me: Here is where he takes flight. It is a contrivance to claim to be a conclusion from the two premises. Again, he does call it an inference rather than a conclusion. Me: OK , he warned me. This conclusion has nothing to do with them, even inductively. I'm honestly still not sure why you say that. I can see why you might *disagree* with it, but not why you can't see how he gets to that inference from that contradiction. It *does* resolve the contradiction if you accept as a possibility the premise that each human consciousness is an individualization of a single Universal Consciousness. Me: I feel a little thick but I don't see it. And I'm feeling a little thick because I'm not seeing what you find objectionable! He might as well say, then magic happens. I don't even understand why he thinks the two separate parts of our existence are contradictory. They are just on different levels and don't need to be resolved. But that's your speculation, not scientific fact. But if they did, I don't see how imagining a universal consciousness helps. Unless he just believes that to be so and the whole set up was just a ruse for him to pull this rabbit out of his hat. Perhaps you can help me understand how this resolves the differences better. In what way? Isn't he just claiming that the mind is not really experiencing free will but the determinism of the group I? Is that how you see it? It's experiencing the *free will* of the group 'I' and interpreting it as its own free will. I think our free will is actually constrained by habits, past experiences, and lots of other psychological factors. Sure it is, but as you go on to say, to some extent, at least, it appears to us that we can overcome those constraints. So the fact that there are some constraints doesn't go counter to his thesis. Acting freely in a new direction from my past takes a lot of effort and force of will. My greatest happiness comes from fighting those deterministic tendencies and doing something new. It is something I practice. The fact that my body is determined by laws of nature makes perfect sense. I don't want to think about breathing or digesting, and I accept that it has rule I must follow to survive. I have learned that I have to impose my will over my body with exercise because inertia is easy to
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp. if inner qualities were lacking. It makes sense if you weren't there. If you were there, it seems a lot like someone trying to cling to his preconceptions. :-) In this case what it is IMO is someone with a large amount of experience--an expert--sharing what this type of thing usually means. It's happened before, it will happen again. Since it violates a lot of Buddhist ethics, it kinda rules out the guy being some great reincarnation. But that's obvious also based on his actions, which were destructive to sentient beings. You also can learn a lot from how people reacted to these incidents, i.e. the old GF you mentioned: confusion, anger, etc: destructive emotions. Not a good sign. I think you're grasping at straws trying to defend *your* preconceptions, Vaj. I never said that she was confused or angry. You made that up. She was neither; she just got up, left the room, said she'd seen and felt nothing extraordinary, and went home. But that was contrary to what she'd actually seen and felt during the talk, based on the ongoing commentary of her 'mumbling thang.' I also remember the effect he had on other practitioners--esp. his students--they were legendary (to put it very nicely). As I rememebr, in dharma circles, there was some mention that either he or a student of his made the claim he was a reincarnation of a Tibetan master and that never panned out. And how would it pan out? I cannot remember if it was investigated, was there ever an official letter issued (i.e. from the office of HHDL)? As if that would prove anything. :-) Look, it's OK for you to dislike Rama; he did a lot of things that are far from likable. It's just that I personally think you're making up all this stuff about legtimate Tibetan teachers saying these things. I think *you're* saying them and attributing them to some unnamed Tibetan teacher. Prove me wrong...give the name of the teacher or teachers who said all this and chances are I know them, and can verify it myself. Again, it's *OK* to dislike Rama and to say anything against him you want to. But don't try to make your own feelings sound more legitimate by ascribing them to others, eh? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've seen people sit and watch someone levitate and admit it verbally as it happens and then get up and leave the room and then claim the next day that it never happened, and that they had never said such a thing. They had simply blotted the whole experience out of their minds because their minds didn't want to deal with it. One such story is funny and I'll share it because the doubter in question was a TMer, a former girl- friend of mine. She was (and still is, I believe) a strong True Believer, completely sold out to Maharishi, so full of TMO Kool-Aid that she sloshed when she walked. :-) At the same time, she was a sincere seeker who had pretty good subtle perception (she could see auras and such phenomena far better than I could). We were no longer going out (largely because by that time I was no longer part of the TMO) but I ran into her in L.A. and she asked what I was up to and I told her and I invited her to a small private talk that Rama was giving that week. To my utter surprise, she agreed to go. So we're sitting there listening to him talk and meditating with the dude, and she is doing her mumbling thang ( she had a tendency to...uh... vocalize, both during sex and meditation...I hear that the ladies in the dome had to ask her to stuff a sock in it more than once :-). Anyway, she sat there saying quietly, Holy shit...he's really floating. Oh. I don't believe it...he just turned invisible. Oooo...the room is filling up with golden light... Stuff like that. Then at one point she abruptly stood up and left, right in the middle of one of the meditations. Afterwards I talked to her briefly about it, even though she clearly did not want to, and she claimed that she'd seen and felt absolutely nothing...no siddhis, no light, nada. Go figure. We never really talked about it again, but my feeling is that she was so threatened by the fact that she was seeing these things and that they *weren't* being done by *her* teacher (Maharishi) that she just blotted them out and refused to ever deal with the experience. I have heard that in the months that followed she denied ever having seen Rama, which possibly ties into this whole denial thang, but also could just have been fear (at that time and place) of being thrown out of the TMO for having seen another teacher. Anyway, my point is that people who claim that they want to see the siddhis may have a surprise or two in store for them when they do. They may find out a great deal about what they *really* want. :-) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
This reification of a concept of some 'nature' is a fallacy. After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is. So intention exists, and desires exist and dedicated thought and action exist, but supported by nature. It is just easier. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
The fully enlightened people alive right now are all dead.---Not so. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
Yes, of course. And the experience of Self realization is nothing more than reaching a level of functioning where this is unimpeded. Nothing more than just that. "Practice makes perfect".This idea of a level of functioning is a fallacy. How can there be an up or a down in spacetime? It's only relative, and if one is speaking of a status of the Absolute then there can be no relative. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
I think TurquoiseB has been there done that as he has said, and seen how sidhis in fact do not change someone's basic vritti. Maharishi, as many people, masters, non-masters, call them whatever, has reified the conceptual notions of enlightenment as if they pertain to the manifest level of life. At times I applaud this effort, because I am also occluded in my thinking, but at times I also find the external emphasis on manifesting signs, very inconsiderate. Only time will tell if signs manifest in the general population of meditators. I would like it, but I wouldn't count on it in this lifetime here at the start of the Dark Ages. I suppose I think that the hope and fear entailed in the generation of manifest sidhis simply cannot equal the sublimity of realization of inner mastery. - Original Message - From: TurquoiseB To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:27 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, OK- Got it. So my question back is, what practical difference in your life would it make if you witnessed someone, even yourself, externally manifesting a sidhi? Would deep contentment well up from within you? Would you gain eternal peacefulness? Would your life be ever dedicated to God? Or would you think about how neat it was, and then just go back to whatever patterns your life has taken on?I think that anyone who thinks that witnessing thesiddhis would change their life in a major way isfooling themselves. Been there, done that, so oftenover a period of fourteen years that we all got kindabored watching them being demonstrated. Ho hum, he'slevitating again.Don't get me wrong...at first there *is* a liberatingeffect of witnessing these things, along the lines of a simultaneous "letting go" of a lifetime's dis-belief in such phenomena. At the same time there isa level of physical freakout that is difficult toput into words (Carlos Castaneda does it well IMO),as your body reacts to having its world turned upsidedown.But in the long run, other than opening you in a verypersonal way to the possibility of "more things inheaven and earth, Horatio," it's not really as earth-shaking as one might imagine.Especially if one believes as I do (and always did,even while witnessing these things) that there isabsolutely no connection between the siddhis andenlightenment. By the way, the best book I ever read of people manifesting sidhis was by one of this planet's most powerful and magnificent saints, Yogananda. His recountings are 100% true, so what more do you need?Again, I think that many aren't as in touch with theirinnate ability to *disbelieve* as they could be. :-)One of the things that strikes you the strongest whenwitnessing siddhis is how strongly your mind and bodywants to *NOT* believe what you are seeing and exper-iencing. They crave rationality and predictability andthey (mind and body) really don't LIKE having to witnessthese things that Just Don't Compute.I've seen people sit and watch someone levitate and admit it verbally as it happens and then get up andleave the room and then claim the next day that it neverhappened, and that they had never said such a thing.They had simply blotted the whole experience out oftheir minds because their minds didn't want to dealwith it.The same thing would happen with a book, any book.If someone's natural doubt about such things is trig-gered, the fact that Yogananda wrote a book aboutwitnessing siddhis means nothing more than the factthat I wrote a book about witnessing siddhis. If yourmind is doing the doubt thing, it's going to do thedoubt thing no matter who the supposed "expert" is. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arriveshttp://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM~- To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, of course. And the experience of Self realization is nothing more than reaching a level of functioning where this is unimpeded. Nothing more than just that. Practice makes perfect. This idea of a level of functioning is a fallacy. How can there be an up or a down in spacetime? It's only relative, and if one is speaking of a status of the Absolute then there can be no relative. Hi Kirk- I agree. The 'level' referred to is relative. Just a limitation of the way I stated it. Perhaps I should've said a state of progression (still a spacetime reference though). In any case, yes it is relative. Maharishi referes to it as experiencing the fullness of the Absolute, or spirit, or Self, with the fullness of the relative, with the relative not overshadowing the Self. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
